Slashdot Mirror

> This is not an epidemic or pandemic.

Wrong. It is a global pandemic. Here's the WHO pandemic flu update (it's update 71 in case you missed the first 70 of them):
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_23/en/index.html

For standard flu vaccines, the speed of production depends on quite a few steps, some of which can be carried out in parallel (e.g. clinical trials can start before all batches are made), while others need to be done in series (e.g. bulk production can't start until growth conditions are optimised):

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090806/en/index.html

One advantage of the VLP approach is that you can produce the relevant proteins in standard biotech 'factory' organisms, which avoids the laborious and time-consuming process of culturing live virus in hens' eggs. Reverse-transcribing the viral RNA is no big deal - this happens in the initial phase of characterising a new virus in any case (for sequencing etc.) long before vaccine production begins.

We know, contrary to the wiki article, that the majority of deaths from the 1918 flu were caused by bacterial pneumonia.

Wikipedia doesn't say that

Oh, com off it, that's an outright lie - Wikipedia DOES say exactly that exactly that, both in the article about the 1918 flue:

The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza

and in the general article about influenza pandemics

The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza,

And in both cases, it's in the same paragraph as the speculation about "cytokine storms". Word-for-word, both articles agree that bacterial pneumonia was not just the #1, but the majority, cause of death. Not some theoretical "cytokine storm", which even the WHO has no basis other than speculation, as in this article.

The theory doesn't fit the facts that we know, just like your claim that Wikipedia doesn't say that bacterial pneumonia caused most deaths. People died mostly of bacterial pneumonia in the middle of a flu epidemic in the middle of a world war that caused many to be malnourished, and exposed tens of millions to local diseases that they would never have encountered before - and most would have survived with antibiotics, which just hadn't been discovered yet.

Nice try, but squalene and other adjuvants are forbidden in U.S. vaccines by the FDA.

Yes, but they are not in Europe. It is still a concern.

Given that the article was about a U.S. hospital, and the bulk of the concerns in the comments were about U.S. vaccination policy, the fact that adjuvants are allowed in Europe really didn't warrant comment. Those vaccines aren't coming here unless the pandemic worsens significantly and there is no way to manufacture additional adjuvant-free vaccine.

With regards to the mercury, if it's that big of a concern to you, I hope you are on a tuna-free diet because there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the thiomersal of any vaccine available in the U.S..

Sure about that? First of it's a ridiculous argument, indeed the level of mercury in tuna are alarmingly high, it doesn't make it right. And regardless, you would have to eat a heck of a lot of tuna to equal even one flu shot.

The FDA lists the mean methylmercury content of canned albacore tuna to be .353ppm. That means 6 ounces (170g) of tuna contains approximately 59.5mcg of methylmercury, or slightly more than a 1mg dose of flu vaccine.

The point IS salient becuase despite that level, the FDA has indicated that tuna is safe for children to eat up to 6 ounces per week.

Let me demonstrate and I will give references. The Flu vaccine contains 25mcg of mercury (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/dosage.htm) this is the seasonal flu link, the h1n1 contains the same amount. Oh sure , you can request the single dose without the mercury, but unless you do, your probably getting the multi-dose. The safe level of mercury is 0.1 mcg per kg body weight, (http://www.gotmercury.org/article.php?id=1169) So a 68kg (~150lb) person safe limit is 6.8mcg per day.

Kind of. What you're quoting is a reference dose, and it's a rate with a time component, not just a simple level. The RfD that you're quoting is the EPA's reference dose, and yes, it's .01mcg/kg body weight per day. So on one day, your 68kg person would ingest a higher than recommended amount, but if the person avoid tuna melts for the next week, his reference dose is back within the EPA's recommendation.

It's also worth noting that there are several reference doses issued by different agencies; the EPA's is the most conservative. The World Health Organization has the highest reference dose of 1.6mcg/kg/week of body weight.

So you just shot almost 4 times the safe limit for an average adult directly into your blood stream.

As a point of clarification, vaccines are injected into the muscle, not directly into the blood stream.

Worse the age group for fluzone is 6months or older... a large 6-7m infant might be 10kg as a high avg, that 1mcg safe limit... great you just shot up your infant with 25 times the safe levels.

Of course, that concern is why they also make the vaccine available in preservative-free doses. It's also why pediatricians will discuss the risks and benefits with parents.

This is on top most people already being near or above the safe daily limits taken in from water and foods. Looking at (http://www.csgnetwork.com/hgqtycalc.html) , eating a can of tuna for the same 150lb person a week is just slightly higher than what is considered safe levels. Don't forget children are to get 3 shots, 1 seasonal and 2 h1n1...

With the exception of broken lightbulbs, thermometers, and dental fillings, you've just outlined the major vectors f

I believe you'll find that they don't just guess the epitopes that they produce the virus for, rather WHO uses data from the previous hemisphere flu season and the presence of current strains. I believe that the formulation changes every six months (February/September), using data from WHO collecting centres around the world (Atlanta, Tokyo, London, Melbourne, etc) and they formulate a vaccine with two strands in it that are at that point the most current and most likely.

The vaccine isn't created to treat potential mutants. It's created to treat the most likely continuing flu strains present in the system that are likely to continue to propagate into the next winter/flu season in the next hemisphere.

Not a year in advance, and not guesswork. Observation and projection.

WHO vaccine information for more if you're interested. Or here.

Smallpox is still out in the wild

The WHO certified its eradication in 1979 so if you know something that the WHO doesn't, I'd like to see a reference that can substantiate your claim.

DDT is not now, nor has it ever been, illegal to use as a house spray to control malaria.

One of the consequences of working for a truly global conspiracy is that many of us are based in countries where, despite our malign influence on the mass media, US television is sadly unavailable. Our sources inform us that 'Colbert' can only be accessed in our current location by a subscription to News Corporation's FX channel, and there some things even we are not prepared to stoop to. We humbly suggest that your cultural assumptions are even wider of the mark than your beliefs about infectious disease, though it is of course perfectly understandable that anyone immersed in the American mass media would attribute all use of ironic language to one of the few sources they are likely to be familiar with.

We do not, of course, encourage critical thinking. Anyone wishing to follow this dangerous route would probably start by consulting one of the providers of 'reliable' information we have not yet managed to suppress or discredit, such as:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/panflu/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

http://www.euro.who.int/influenza/ah1n1

and applying some common sense and a modicum of scientific training. We would much prefer that everyone else receives their information from (e.g.) self-publicising osteopaths citing scare stories from UK tabloids with similar credibility to Fox News, including the memorable article that turns a sensible precaution about a possible rare complication of vaccination into a Deadly Nerve Disease Warning. Otherwise we might get people reading things like this:

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm

"Several studies have been done to evaluate if other flu vaccines since 1976 were associated with GBS. Only one of the studies showed an association. That study suggested that one person out of 1 million vaccinated persons may be at risk of GBS associated with the vaccine."

and comparing any possible risk with the real case fatality rate of swine flu, which would never do.

While this is true, the normal influenza does not spread to everyone. Huge parts of population don't get influenza because they are resistant to it. H1N1 does infect practically everyone and this is where low death rates of infected people will become much larger numbers than with regular influenza. Difference can be 10 fold, just for sake of argument normal influenza infects 100 million people worldwide. Out of those 100 000 die, many with pre-existing conditions. H1N1 infects 1 billion people, out of those 1 million die, many with pre-existing conditions. Additionally current death rates are given based on good availability of health care, what happens at the peak of the H1N1 epidemic is that even the most critical cases may not have a place to be treated and could push up the death rate significantly.

From WHO site:
* Large populations susceptible to infection
* Not the same as seasonal influenza (deaths occur in adults under the age of 50 years)
* Higher risk of hospitalization and death

Link: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_second_wave_20090828/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_09_04/en/index.html (most recent as of right now)

I'd think these guys know better than anyone what's going on. It's up, it's down. Some countries have increased numbers of H1N1 influenza cases, some countries' numbers are on the decline. The *really* interesting part will come sometime between now and the beginning of next year ( http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm ) when the United States "flu season" typically peaks. So many people who are afraid to call in sick for fear of discipline or losing their jobs will go to work anyways, infecting others in the closed-in environments. Thank goodness so many of us IT people can telecommute. ;)

It is now known that squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, and technical deficiencies in the report suggesting an association have been published.

Your talkng out of your ass. NICE is not reffered to as "Nasty" in the UK.

There are times when NICE comes out with some insanely stupid policy but usually BBC News or the papers kick up about it and NICE changes policy. The worst idea they had to do with a drug that prevented blindness. Because of its expense you could only get the drug free on the NHS if you had only one eye. Unfortunatly if youy had two eyes you didn't get the drug free. The media storm that occured when one paitent lost an eye was large enough that NICE changed their policy and did a full investigation into all of them to make sure there wern't any other stupid ones like that. Even if the drug you want isn't as clear cut you can take the matter to the High court and make your case (I think 2 expearimental cancer drugs are now free because of this despite their varying sucess and cost).

NICE is made up of a group of expearenced doctors who decide if the benifit a drug gives a paitent is bearable by the state and sets policy on what the NHS will offer. We have several treatments you wouldn't expect like infertility treatment, sex change operations and abortions for free.

For all this american mocking of the NHS our health care is 18th in the world while yours is 34th (according to WHO). We also pay less than you for our health care. The UK's also been consistantly better If you don't want to be treated by the NHS you can pay for private health care. The comany I work for gives me free BUPA coverage.

Lastly the Tory MEP who told America about how our NHS sucks caused alot of problems for the Tory Party and have damaged their election bid. The Tory party leader has backpeddled.

Your talkng out of your ass. NICE is not reffered to as "Nasty" in the UK.

There are times when NICE comes out with some insanely stupid policy but usually BBC News or the papers kick up about it and NICE changes policy. The worst idea they had to do with a drug that prevented blindness. Because of its expense you could only get the drug free on the NHS if you had only one eye. Unfortunatly if youy had two eyes you didn't get the drug free. The media storm that occured when one paitent lost an eye was large enough that NICE changed their policy and did a full investigation into all of them to make sure there wern't any other stupid ones like that. Even if the drug you want isn't as clear cut you can take the matter to the High court and make your case (I think 2 expearimental cancer drugs are now free because of this despite their varying sucess and cost).

NICE is made up of a group of expearenced doctors who decide if the benifit a drug gives a paitent is bearable by the state and sets policy on what the NHS will offer. We have several treatments you wouldn't expect like infertility treatment, sex change operations and abortions for free.

For all this american mocking of the NHS our health care is 18th in the world while yours is 34th (according to WHO). We also pay less than you for our health care. The UK's also been consistantly better If you don't want to be treated by the NHS you can pay for private health care. The comany I work for gives me free BUPA coverage.

Lastly the Tory MEP who told America about how our NHS sucks caused alot of problems for the Tory Party and have damaged their election bid. The Tory party leader has backpeddled.

Two words: [citation needed]

India is doing if not better, at least as good as any low to middle income country in the world as far as healthcare is concerned. Combined government and non-government expenditure on health is more than 6% GDP which is what China and other low to mid income countries spend. (Source: WHR 2008).

There might be some well off people in india but the vast majority of the population live in poverty that westerners would find hard to imagine.

This was true decades ago. You will be surprised what consistent 8% growth over many years can do. The vast majority in India is now above the International poverty line. World Bank 2005 estimates suggest that the percentage of people living below $1.25 a day in 2005 decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005. At a dollar a day, poverty declined from 42% to 24% over the same period. (Source:World Bank Povert report 2005)

Bypassing the Slashdot summary (which appears to have been written by the authors of the Scientific American Article that the link takes you to - or at least it uses their exact words), and ignoring the Scientific American Article, which was written by the authors of a paper to promote their own paper - I went to the article (The Bright Side of Being Blue: Depression as an adaptation for analysing complex problems" 2009, Psychological Review, 116, 620-654).

The authors' main point seems to be that if a person has a complex problem that needs to be solved, then withdrawing from social contact, ruminating on your problems, taking no pleasure in anything (i.e. focusing exclusively on your problems) and so on (the symptoms of depression) make sense because the chance of solving a problem will be higher. And, since depressed people have a cognitive style which cause them to be better at focusing on the micro-detail of problems ("ruminating"), depression has an adaptive function - it helps us solve problems.

It's certainly true that depressed people are very good ruminators, although this is generally described in negative terms as a "faulty cognitive style" because depressed people ruminate on problems that either (a) have no real existence outside of their heads or (b) exist but would be solved (or accepted) by most people without the person becoming disabled. Hence we hear stories of people who commit suicide for odd-seeming reasons (someone insulted them on facebook).

So, I'm thinking that the authors are over-extrapolating a slight superiority in a particular problem-solving skill to a conclusion that "Depression [is] an adaptation for analyzing complex problems". I'm thinking that depression is to problem solving what cytokine storm is to a healthy immune response.

I had the same misconception but it is easily dispersed.

According to this the top 7 are not Asian. China is way down there, below France, Poland, Switzerland, Uruguay.

Country, Male Suicide per 100k, Female suicide per 100k, total pop suicide per 100k, year

Lithuania 68.1 12.9 38.6 2005

  Belarus 63.3 10.3 35.1 2003

  Russia 58.1 9.8 32.2 2005

  Slovenia 42.1 11.1 26.3 2006

  Hungary 42.3 11.2 26.0 2005

  Kazakhstan 45.0 8.1 25.9 2005

  Latvia 42.0 9.6 24.5 2005

  Japan 34.8 13.2 23.7 2006

I assumed the suicide rate would be much higher in Asia, but I guess it is just reported more or happens in more high-profile cases or something.

Help me with basic math...as I don't understand how the 'total pop suicide/100k' can be less than the sum of male + female. For instance if 68.1 males and 12.9 females whack themselves then wouldn't that be 81 total pop suicides per 100k per year?

Not trolling or trying to be an ass...I seriously wish for clarity here.

Thank you for your patience.

I had the same misconception but it is easily dispersed.

According to this the top 7 are not Asian. China is way down there, below France, Poland, Switzerland, Uruguay.

Country, Male Suicide per 100k, Female suicide per 100k, total pop suicide per 100k, year
Lithuania 68.1 12.9 38.6 2005
Belarus 63.3 10.3 35.1 2003
Russia 58.1 9.8 32.2 2005
Slovenia 42.1 11.1 26.3 2006
Hungary 42.3 11.2 26.0 2005
Kazakhstan 45.0 8.1 25.9 2005
Latvia 42.0 9.6 24.5 2005
Japan 34.8 13.2 23.7 2006

I assumed the suicide rate would be much higher in Asia, but I guess it is just reported more or happens in more high-profile cases or something.

Smallpox vaccine is not nearly as effective as you might think. See http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/smallpox.shtml

The reasons that smallpox could be eradicated are that there were only a few types, no animal host, and it was a frigging nasty disease, so everyone wanted to eradicated it.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9. Problem is that many women complain about nonoxynol-9 being too harsh, causing itching or burning.

There's another problem. That itching and burning means that the spermicide is irritating the epithelial tissue. This is important because it can actually increase the risk of HIV transmission. Though nonoxynol 9 kills the HIV virus, at the same time it increases the risk of male to female transmission. Your "liquid condom" idea serves men fairly well, but it's not such a great deal for the ladies.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/who55/en/index.html

My endorsements for men with slightly above-average penises are Kimono and jimmiehatz, which are black and may be weird for you and your partner if having a black dick is a problem.

It may be a problem for you, but it's probably a dream come true for her.

LK

You know that our brain and nerves work electromagnetically

Actually, no. Your eyes are quite sensitive to EM waves in the just sub 1um range, and as a secondary effect, EM waves in the vague range of a kilowatt per square meter heat your skin just as much as sunlight does. Vision, and bulk thermal heating effects. That's about it for EM radiation effects on the body.

Your neurons (assuming earth species) work on electrical potentials in the vaguely mV-ish range plus or minus an order of magnitude or two or so.

Now, moving a charge carrier thru an immense magnetic field makes an electric field, that is whats theorized to cause any effects of "magnetism on the body".

There is some pretty crackpotty stuff about certain organic chemicals and enzymes having a small dipole moment that may or may not react differently under extreme fields, but probably not even in a lab. If it were relevant, living things would probably evolve to be very sensitive to their magnetic alignment, which they seem not to be. If I got 0.005% better liver enzyme function if I slept aligned N-S, I probably would have evolved to sense that to get the free bonus, but thats not happened.

and many processes in our body do not expect a strong magnetic field on the outside.

The electrical signals in your brain make femto-tesla range fields, charges that move in a non-straight line, etc. So... uh... every brain thats ever existed has always floated in a femto tesla range field of its own making. So that certainly sets a low range of concern of about 1 fT below which our own brains create a field stronger than the external field of concern.

Then there's the .1 mT -ish range earth's magnetic field. Which occasionally drops to zero. And probably, occasionally goes over it's normal range due to magnetic storms and stuff. Anything from the earth is green and organic and therefore good, much like, say, hemlock, or poisonous mushrooms. So, good old mother nature sets low range of 1 mT or so. It seems most species can't evolve a useful sense organ for "mT" level fields, strong indication fields of that strength are not biologically active.

A kids toy bar magnet runs around single digit mT range, so I'd worry more about the red lead paint on the "N" side of the magnet, than the actual field itself.

When you break out the liquid helium, then I'd worry about cryo accidents, suffocation / oxygen displacement accidents, and of course accidentally placing a body part between the "T" range magnet and something made of iron. Way down on the list of concerns, maybe there would be worries about the biological effect of the field.

How strong is still OK

Here's an interesting link from some green group, which may or may not be flaky, but seems remarkably reasonable to an engineer like me, and suggests fields stronger than current model MRI range are getting troublesome to humans.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/static-fields/l-3/4-interactions-body.htm

Here's the world health organization's opinion. A gross generalization of their 30+ page report is don't worry be happy.

http://www.who.int/entity/peh-emf/about/en/Static%20and%20ELF%20Fields.pdf

and is the one who defines this trustworthy?

Well, greenie luddites are probably as technophobic, and ignorant of what they fear, as a group can get, and they seem only mildly concerned about the highest field levels from the most powerful magnets being built in today's laboratories, everything else you'll ever experience is probably a factor of ten thousand to ten million lower field and probably a factor of more than thousands to millions safer, since risk is not strictly linear since we live in a planetary field and our own nerv

252 cases where I am. 2 required hospitalization. No deaths.

Indeed, if you look at the numbers death rate seem to be around 0.2% in most developed occidental rich countries, and only higher in poorer regions.
It's high, but not "OMG! We're all gonna die"-high.

Do not come back with the Spanish Flu pandemic. Medical science, hygiene etc... have ALL comes on in leaps and bounds since then.

Which seems to be confirmed by the above distribution of numbers.
- Rich country usually have better access do medecine, more places and personal in hospitals, etc. and have low death rate (their are also the country which will buy drugs and vaccines en masse as part of their pandemic plan - and the pharma companies will be happy to sell to rich customers anyway).
- Poor country haven't gotten as much better than 1912 Europa as richer country did. And they have a higher swine-flu mortality. (they also won't be able to afford as many drugs and vaccines and aren't an interesting market for drug companies anyway).

The best thing we can do to prevent the flu is COUGH AND SNEEZE INTO OUR ARMS! Seriously, do not cover your mouth with your hands. You cough or sneeze into the crook of your elbow. You don't touch anyone with that, and it contains the germs.

You're joking, but part of the Swiss pandemic-readiness plan includes advices to :
- Use disposable paper hand-kerchief
- Cover the sneeze (using said paper hk)
- Wash hands regularly
- During social interactions, avoid hand-to-hand contact and avoid staying within sneezing range of each other.

Indeed, basic hygiene definitely helps stopping viruses spreading.

Glad to see someone has used the "money" tag on this story.

"Politics" would could become appropriate too. Pharma compagnies aren't renowed for their ethics and I that some of our swiss companies would be tempted to try influence USA's stance toward our banks.

Lots of reasons listed here: "The difference with H1N1 swine flu is that the virus is almost exclusively targeting people under 65."

And Margaret Chan, quoted a bit more down on the page:

"We know that the novel H1N1 virus preferentially infects younger people. In nearly all areas with large and sustained outbreaks, the majority of cases have occurred in people under the age of 25 years.
In some of these countries, around 2% of cases have developed severe illness, often with very rapid progression to life-threatening pneumonia. Most cases of severe and fatal infections have been in adults between the ages of 30 and 50 years. This pattern is significantly different from that seen during epidemics of seasonal influenza, when most deaths occur in frail elderly people. Many, though not all, severe cases have occurred in people with underlying chronic conditions.
Based on limited, preliminary data, conditions most frequently seen include respiratory diseases, notably asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and obesity.
At the same time, it is important to note that around one third to half of the severe and fatal infections are occurring in previously healthy young and middle-aged people. Without question, pregnant women are at increased risk of complications. This heightened risk takes on added importance for a virus, like this one, that preferentially infects younger age groups."

Now, whether any of this makes it more of a threat to humanity than what we normally get is a subject of popular debate, which means it gets talked about, which means it sells to talk about it more and create headlines mentioning it. No one mentions West Nile viurs much anymore, which had only 1, 356 reported cases in the US during 2008. But, there were 44 total, or 3.2%, fatalities, Maybe it is just what people want to talk about, since that sells advertising space.

The only notable part to me for H1N1 is how many cases are still in the Northern Hemisphere when we are nearly at Summer, FluTracker. I did not compare that data to other sites, or have find a baseline to compare, so it may just be normal.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap12.pdf

That's from WHO in 2005, fairly reliable I'd say. The topic of distilled water drinking seems to be fairly controversial, I'm guessing it has to do with companies selling deionizing machines for thousands of dollars. There's also a lot of "natural health" folks with various opinions and websites claiming all kinds of stuff about waters, minerals and additives. Can be tricky with the signal to noise ratio as it is.

While not a large number, WHO estimates that 314 million people are blind or visually impaired. So add that number to those who wouldn't be able to see the Milky Way.

According to a fairly respected source 19.1% of US government spending is on healthcare, as against 16.5% in the UK and 17.9% in Canada, for a similar standard of healthcare (notwithstanding Giuliani's witterings last year). And yes, I know that to an extent this is comparing apples to oranges, but I find this assumption that 'socialized' healthcare is necessarily more expensive to the taxpayer than your current half-cocked system more than a little ill-founded.

I guess I just don't understand any rational fear of [strict] free market economics.

• Child Labor
• Oligopolies (the current form of government in the U.S.)
• Wage Slavery
• Media Ownership (see also oligopolies)
• Health care in the U.S. (The rest of the industrialized world is appalled by conditions in the U.S.)
• Food and drug safety
• Occupational Safety (OSHA is still constantly under assault, despite the previous item)
• Public health (Not having a centralized (and publicly-owned) NIH and CDC would be playing with fire)
• Public safety: Firefighting and EMS (It took the Great Chicago Fire to kill off the private fire subscription services, something the Romans figured out 1900 years earlier).

Not an exhaustive list, obviously. The resistance to regulation of investment banking caused problems that we're living with currently, and I haven't even got to environmental degradation, over-consumption's effect on foreign policy, etc.

I'm not expecting to change your beliefs, but hopefully now you at least understand that the concerns about pure free markets are definitely not irrational.

From WHO: "There is no indication of virus adaptation through transfer from human to pigs at this time."
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_03a/en/index.html

US exports $5 billion+ pork each year. Mexico imports most of its pork from US/Canada. Other countries such as China know that the swine flu was much more likely to have incubated in the massive pig farms of US and Canada before transferring to humans, rather than the other way round as so called "news" like this try to make us believe.

"China was also selective, banning only pork from Texas, California and Kansas, while the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and Ecuador said theyâ(TM)re stopping all U.S. pork imports, according to Nefeterius Akeli McPherson of the U.S. trade representativeâ(TM)s office."
China ban US pork

The mortality rate of the infected appears to be quite low, which is great news (the number of confirmed infections in Mexico is going up quite a bit faster than the deaths from confirmed infections, and all of the deaths, save the Mexican boy that died in Texas, have been in Mexico. Numbers from the WHO: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01a/en/index.html ).

Even with the relatively short period where people are infectious but not showing symptoms, there will be plenty of people with symptoms that don't bother seeking medical care or staying away from others, so I doubt that things are on the decline just yet.

"Current level of influenza pandemic alert raised from phase 4 to 5"

http://www.who.int/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic/phases.htm.

Obviously as it spreads more, the risk is greater, but it isn't some "terror alert level" they're raising, it's the phase in the progression of the outbreak that they're tracking.

The 4% is based, at best, on incredibly thin numbers from Mexico (thin in the sense that there isn't much information about the actual number of infected patients, meaning that the denominator isn't very useful).

As of this morning, there were 91 confirmed cases in the United States:

http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/index.htm

The WHO has similar information for worldwide cases (the numbers coming out of the media for Mexico are much higher than the WHO report for confirmed cases, 150+ deaths, with hundreds infected):

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/entity/csr/don/2009_04_29/en/index.html

The 4% is based, at best, on incredibly thin numbers from Mexico (thin in the sense that there isn't much information about the actual number of infected patients, meaning that the denominator isn't very useful).

As of this morning, there were 91 confirmed cases in the United States:

http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/index.htm

The WHO has similar information for worldwide cases (the numbers coming out of the media for Mexico are much higher than the WHO report for confirmed cases, 150+ deaths, with hundreds infected):

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/entity/csr/don/2009_04_29/en/index.html

Actually, WHO is at 4 now(Apr 27, 2009, 22:38 UTC)

CAN NOT be hamful? really? that's quite a dogmatic statement, for one who "doubts dogma". So plants engineered to KILL THINGS... that has no effect whatsoever on a person that eats it? it's exactly the same? That would be an amazing thing, if true. However, it's a ridiculous statement: you can't know that for all current and future GM technology. THAT is what organic means: we are not guessing. I'm a little stunned you could even pretend there could be no effects. You could GM a plant specifically to kill people, so your statement is obviously wrong. And if you are interested in science, you should realize you could not make such definite statements such as "can not" be harmful. All you can say is "doesn't seem to be harmful so far". Any time you change something significantly you introduce the possibility of unintended consequences.

the World Health Organization is on my side as well,

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.

Your thousands of generations may be well and good in a lab, but I mean thousands of human generations, not plant generations. I don't care how many plants people peer at in a lab. I care how many people have grown old eating the stuff.

Organic is a specific term because that is what organic consumers want. Seriously: fuck you for even mentioning watering it down, it's already hard enough to stop Walmart and other big boys from co-opting the term to make it meaningless. That would only serve to mislead consumers who don't wish to be full time participants in science experiments. and consumers of natural foods want to know if it's GM, for the most part, like it or not, and it should be our right to make that decision for ourselves.

Odd, even USAID are actively helping other countries use DDT. The WHO list DDT as an approved insecticide. I can give references to support this: USAID: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/techareas/irs.html WHO: http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/FAQonDDT.pdf Can you provide a reference for your accusation that "they" cut funding to "you" if you use DDT? (wondering who "they" and "you" are - are we talking individuals or states here..?)

How many of our own children have died in the past year to auto accidents? How many of our people have died in them? How many die to starvation because its not politically correct to remove the tyrants in power?

I will say this about astronauts and soldiers. Both sign up even after seeing the numbers because they envision something greater than themselves and are willing to pay the ultimate price to see it through. I wish I still had that courage (served from 85 to 89). Sometimes we forget just how much is paid for because people love life so much that they will do what it takes to make it better for the rest of us.

We turn a blind eye to "common" deaths and exaggerate the impact of the uncommon. I don't see to minimize Iraq but I have friends who went through Vietnam and Iraq has nothing on that. In fact two of them have children in or having served in Iraq and neither expressed any concern after talking to their children about it. I fully expect the tone about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to change simply because of who is in office.

For some numbers worldwide http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr17/en/index.html

Tell me why we aren't doing more. Its pretty twisted to ignore them too.

I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel. I couldn't remember which minerals, but I found them in the WHO report. The minerals are calcium & magnesium. See page 17, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf So people who drink pure water should takes multi-vitamins to compensate. Or drink a couple of glasses of milk a day.

>Since landing on the moon, what has NASA done?

Hubble plus the stuff you mentioned and then some.

>The landers on Mars are interesting, but I haven't seen much tangible value arise from that exploration.

Tons of PhD thesis's and papers. Also geological data about resources is nothing to sneeze at (Just try getting accurate information about oil and how much is left). The problem is that nobody is living on Mars yet. But going there without knowing where to find any water and other resources is kinda dumb.

Finally lets have a look at R&D spending:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/histda09.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/res06.pdf

Maybe you should better ask what the overblown health spending has done for you.

Play around with this a bit and you will understand.
http://www.who.int/whosis

Socialized Healthcare is better, and the data on that is where? And is the data objective meaning, 3rd party data, not provided by "the system"

here it is: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html

and it certainly shows that not all public/social healthcare systems are better than the healthcare in the us. but it shows that most are, at least of those countries with comparable economy,

If Cuba's helathcare is a failure the let's compare Cuba to the US.
According to the World Health Organization (see http://www.who.int/countries ) the results are:

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years):
Cuba: 76/80
US: 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003):
Cuba: 67/70
US: 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births):
Cuba: 7
US: 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population):
Cuba: 127/82
US: 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005):
Cuba: 333
US: 6,347

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005):
Cuba: 7.6
US: 15.2

Reach your own conclusions.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it hasn't worked anywhere

Really?

Notwithstanding the problems with the NHS, the UK has longer life expectancy than the US, lower rates of child mortality, and spends less than half as much on healthcare per head as the US.

And don't forget that private healthcare is available (and cheap too) in the UK, so you could spend the extra $3,400 per year per person you're spending on healthcare on private cover in the UK.

DNA that calculates, predicts, economically manages inherent "bio-credits", plans, adapts, and self-motivates to construct massive biological machines and places illusions into the inanimate elements that compose those chemical reactions -- telling them the best ways to breed and prepare itself for further replication...

and listens to prayers, makes himself be born of a virgin, lets 1 child die from a very efficient parasite every 30 seconds, but is all loving and all knowing and almighty, has got to be much more complex and therefore unlikely to have come into existence without a cause. It is more unlikely than a hurricane assembling a fighter jet.

Now, how many people die of food poisoning every year?

Take a look at this. That paper estimates 5000 deaths from food poisoning in the US every year.

WHO claims 1 vCJD case in the US in the period 1996 to 2002 when the BSE scare was at it's worst.

Furthermore, there are other suspected vectors for vCJD than cattle (brains and offal from other animals, for example).

How come there's no similar outcry for massive increases in precautions against Toxoplasma, Listeria and Salmonella, the three of which alone account for 1500 deaths in the US?

The focus on vCJD is causing people to worry about the wrong things, and that is a much greater health concern than vCJD is.

Getting the proper amount of people for anything scientific is hard. The number is "low" for a number of reasons (actually, I see it as pretty high):

- There's rigorous screening or information collection, which is a big deterrent.
- It has to be voluntary to ally with ethical guidelines, hence everyone has to "opt in" and sign.
- There is limited compensation since the money has to go to actual science.
- There is limited compensation to deal with a huge number of resources.
- That's a combination of only three countries - Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Also, don't forget about population. By 2006, Germany had 24908 AIDS cases (13516 died), Italy had 57375 (35077 died), and Sweden had 2095, of which 1317 died.

That's 84378 total cases. Assuming both living and dead patients are eligible for the database, then 18,000 is 21.33% of everyone who has AIDS in those countries. That's unbelievable. If that success was applied to a worldwide database, we'd have a database of over 7 Million individuals.

Getting the proper amount of people for anything scientific is hard. The number is "low" for a number of reasons (actually, I see it as pretty high):

- There's rigorous screening or information collection, which is a big deterrent.
- It has to be voluntary to ally with ethical guidelines, hence everyone has to "opt in" and sign.
- There is limited compensation since the money has to go to actual science.
- There is limited compensation to deal with a huge number of resources.
- That's a combination of only three countries - Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Also, don't forget about population. By 2006, Germany had 24908 AIDS cases (13516 died), Italy had 57375 (35077 died), and Sweden had 2095, of which 1317 died.

That's 84378 total cases. Assuming both living and dead patients are eligible for the database, then 18,000 is 21.33% of everyone who has AIDS in those countries. That's unbelievable. If that success was applied to a worldwide database, we'd have a database of over 7 Million individuals.

Getting the proper amount of people for anything scientific is hard. The number is "low" for a number of reasons (actually, I see it as pretty high):

- There's rigorous screening or information collection, which is a big deterrent.
- It has to be voluntary to ally with ethical guidelines, hence everyone has to "opt in" and sign.
- There is limited compensation since the money has to go to actual science.
- There is limited compensation to deal with a huge number of resources.
- That's a combination of only three countries - Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Also, don't forget about population. By 2006, Germany had 24908 AIDS cases (13516 died), Italy had 57375 (35077 died), and Sweden had 2095, of which 1317 died.

That's 84378 total cases. Assuming both living and dead patients are eligible for the database, then 18,000 is 21.33% of everyone who has AIDS in those countries. That's unbelievable. If that success was applied to a worldwide database, we'd have a database of over 7 Million individuals.

Do you think national healthcare is free?? Where do you think these countries get the money for that and other social[ist] programs? They tax the hell out of companies, imports (and individuals)

National healthcare isn't free, but it's no cause of higher taxes in Europe than in the USA, because the US government spends as much as many European governments on healthcare. According to international comparisons published by WHO, government expenditure on health for 2005 was:

• UK: $2669 per head
• Germany: $2790 per head
• USA: $2860 per head
• France: $3135 per head

It's frequency: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/about/what_is_ir/en/index.html. Basically, anything higher frequency than visible light is ionizing, meaning it can knock electrons around in an atom. Radio frequencies are all lower frequency than visible light. Ionizing radiation is stuff like X-Rays and Gamma Rays.

According to the WHO, 1.2 million people die from car accidents each year in the entire word (about 670,000 in developed countries and 43,000 in the USA alone), and 50 million are injured (more than there are people in Canada).

Just like the myth of the frog that won't jump out of slowly boiling water, didn't we get too slowly used to the reality of the dangers of driving to realise and conclude that maybe we aren't fit to drive? Why do we still find the risk acceptable? Is it because most of the people who could learn from experience that driving is dangerous cannot drive anymore? Why do we accept so easily to see 43,000 people (14 times 9/11) die every year and not look for a solution for it and get really upset when a hundred of people die from firearm accidents? Why don't we look more actively for a more radical solution that won't reduce casualties by just a very few percents but make us orders of magnitude safer? Can't we see that there's something fundamentally flawed about letting mostly anyone drive a vehicle close to other vehicles at deadly speeds? Why do we seem to worry more about the gases that our cars emit than the lives they take?

And more importantly, where's my fully automated flying car?

Cancer rates have DECREASED over the last several years.

Quote: "Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020

3 April 2003 | GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date. However, the report also provides clear evidence that healthy lifestyles and public health action by governments and health practitioners could stem this trend, and prevent as many as one third of cancers worldwide."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/
www.iarc.fr/IARCPress/general/wcr.pdf

CC.