Re: Nutty Conspiracist [was: [L3] RE: Bird flu movie]
Deborah Harrell wrote: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I forgot the wicked smiley!;-} Debbi Bird Flu Is A Ploy Of The Gubru Maru That would have hit the monitor if I'd been drinking anything here. One of the most amusing things I've read today. (Maybe THE most amusing thing.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nutty Conspiracist [was: [L3] RE: Bird flu movie]
> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I forgot the wicked smiley!;-} Debbi Bird Flu Is A Ploy Of The Gubru Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nutty Conspiracist [was: [L3] RE: Bird flu movie]
> Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Deborah Harrell quoted: > > They found that a genetic mutation that gives its > carriers > > protection against the HIV virus became relatively > common among > > white Europeans about 700 years ago > > So the HIV virus was designed by White People to > kill Black People! > "THEY" had convinced me that it had been fnord > designed by Hetero People > to kill Gay People. Time to chance Conspiracy > Theories! > Only in retaliation for BPs throwing pale persons out of Africa, thus forcing them to marry each other, and produce offspring ever more susceptible to the too-powerful yet life-giving rays of the sun; the result is those dour Norwegians who live in darkness nearly half the year, leading to a high suicide rate. Debbi Metastasizing Melanoma Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nutty Conspiracist [was: [L3] RE: Bird flu movie]
> > They found that a genetic mutation that gives its carriers > > protection against the HIV virus became relatively common among > > white Europeans about 700 years ago > > > So the HIV virus was designed by White People to kill Black People! > "THEY" had convinced me that it had been fnord designed by Hetero People > to kill Gay People. Time to chance Conspiracy Theories! > Don't make fun of this...I know that you are one of "them"... ...I noticed the suspicous space before the word "designed". If you know where to look... - Klaus ;-) _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Nutty Conspiracist [was: [L3] RE: Bird flu movie]
Deborah Harrell quoted: > > They found that a genetic mutation that gives its carriers > protection against the HIV virus became relatively common among > white Europeans about 700 years ago So the HIV virus was designed by White People to kill Black People! "THEY" had convinced me that it had been fnord designed by Hetero People to kill Gay People. Time to chance Conspiracy Theories! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[L3] RE: Bird flu movie
Oh, bloody h- I just lost my entire reply to this - now attempting to reconstruct it. > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > > The acting was bad, the plot had some major holes, > > some of the science was more-than-iffy - but it > was > > interesting to watch, and if it made people think > > ahead just a little bit, that might actually be > > helpful: > > > http://www.webmd.com/content/article/121/114487.htm > I didn't see the movie but did see the ABC nightline > on the facts. I was > also in this debate before, and have looked up some > facts. > > They had some of the real life counterparts of > people in the movie (the > secretary of HHS and the governor of Virginia, as > well as CDC scientists on > Nightline. The most criticized part of the show was > the end, when the > second wave of the flu killed 100%. The CDC > scientist said while nothing > was impossible in biology, this was very very > unlikely. That makes sense. Even Ebola isn't that deadly. > If such things happened once every 100,000 years, > the odds on humans still being here would be rather >low. But that may be what happened to cheetahs - see * below (and darnit I was right about the virus being ~12K years ago ). Also see **, which I may have posted before, about a theory that a viral infection in the Scandanavian area may have conferred resistance to the Black Death (which may not have just been plague bacillus), and perhaps to HIV. (I was incorrect about that being 10K years ago; it's more like 2500-5K years ago.) > If the 1918 flu epidemic is the template for the > next one, then the death > rates are vastly overstated. In some countries, the > death rate approached > 10%. But, in the US it was less than 1%...0.6% > IIRC. I'd argue that the > state of medicine and nutrition had a lot to do with > the difference. >From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Flu "...Global mortality rate from the flu is estimated at 2.5% 5% of the human population, with 20% of the world population suffering from the disease to some extent. It spread across the world killing 25 million in six months; some estimates put the total killed at over twice that number, possibly even 100 million. An estimated 17 million died in India, about 5% of India's population at the time. In the Indian Army, almost 22% of troops who caught the disease died of it. In US, about 28% of the population suffered, and 500,000 to 675,000 died. In Britain 200,000 died; in France more than 400,000. The death rate was especially high for indigenous peoples; entire villages perished in Alaska and southern Africa. In the Fiji Islands, 14% of population died during only two weeks, and in Western Samoa 22%. In Japan, 257,363 deaths were attributed to influenza by July 1919, giving an estimated 0.425% mortality rate..." >From http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/uda/ "...The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. [I saw 12 years on another site.] The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years (Taubenberger). People were struck with illness on the street and died rapid deaths. One anectode shared of 1918 was of four women playing bridge together late into the night. Overnight, three of the women died from influenza (Hoagg)... "...With one-quarter of the US and one-fifth of the world infected with the influenza, it was impossible to escape from the illness. Even President Woodrow Wilson suffered from the flu in early 1919 while negotiating the crucial treaty of Versailles to end the World War (Tice)..." >From the CDC [detailed article; has links to most of the footnoted articles, also lots of graphs]: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm "...An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 19181919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (57) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7). The impact of this pandemic was not limited to 19181919. All influenza A pandemics since that time, and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including "drifted" H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the "mother" of all pandemics...With the appearance of a new H2N2 pandemic stra
RE: Bird flu movie
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:13 PM > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Bird flu movie > > The acting was bad, the plot had some major holes, > some of the science was more-than-iffy - but it was > interesting to watch, and if it made people think > ahead just a little bit, that might actually be > helpful: > > http://www.webmd.com/content/article/121/114487.htm > ...ABC's Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America is > fiction. It presents a worst-of-worst-cases scenario > of what might happen in a pandemic of deadly, highly > contagious bird flu. > > Could what happens in the movie really take place? > Laurie Garrett, senior fellow for global health at the > Council of Foreign Relations, was a script consultant > for the movie (at her request, her name does not > appear in the movie credits). She's seen an advance > screening. > > "The film is very grim. But I don't think it is > sensationalistic," Garrett tells WebMD. "I didn't > think they exaggerated, but it is a worst-case > scenario. A virulent, highly contagious flu comes to > America. There is no viable vaccine on tap. The drugs > have limited or no efficacy. There are shortages of > essential supplies and goods that become acute later > in the epidemic..." > > Debbi > who has ~ 2 weeks worth of food on-hand, and could > probably hold out for 4 if necessary (but would likely > end up working at a temp hospital if a true pandemic occurred) I didn't see the movie but did see the ABC nightline on the facts. I was also in this debate before, and have looked up some facts. They had some of the real life counterparts of people in the movie (the secretary of HHS and the governor of Virginia, as well as CDC scientists on Nightline. The most criticized part of the show was the end, when the second wave of the flu killed 100%. The CDC scientist said while nothing was impossible in biology, this was very very unlikely. That makes sense. If such things happened once every 100,000 years, the odds on humans still being here would be rather low. If the 1918 flu epidemic is the template for the next one, then the death rates are vastly overstated. In some countries, the death rate approached 10%. But, in the US it was less than 1%...0.6% IIRC. I'd argue that the state of medicine and nutrition had a lot to do with the difference. Further, we'd probably lose fewer people now than we did then for the same type of pandemic because: 1) We have better nutrition and general health. Few are starving in the US. 2) We don't have rampant TB. If you look at the TB deaths in the years following the flu, they dropped noticeably. One argument was that the flu resulted in an "early harvest" of TB deaths of people who appeared fairly healthy but had TB. 3) We are much better prepared to fight bacterial pneumonia, etc. than we were before 1920. 4) We do have some Tamiflu.by 2008 it will be enough to dose an expected 25% infection rate. Given this, it's probable that the death rate from a pandemic that's the equivalent of the Spanish flu would be lower. I'd guess to the 0.25% level or so. It's harder to speculate on worse flu's, but if the exponential tail rule for pandemics works like the symptoms rule (30% get sick, 4% get very sick but only 0.6% died), then a death rate of >1% would require a once in a millennium flu or worse. It doesn't mean that it won't be a problem. Our standards for governmental response to a crisis is much higher than it was in the early 20th century, and I'd expect the response to fall short. Even if we have a US full of New Orleans, we should not expect a 1% death rate. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
