Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vaccine Effective Against Avian Flu

Posted by Zonk on from the ahh-science-is-there-anything-you-can't-do? dept.

FiReaNGeL writes "Researchers announced they have genetically engineered an avian flu vaccine from the critical components of the deadly H5N1 virus that completely protected mice and chickens from infection. This virus has thus far killed 80 people, devastated bird populations in Southeast Asia and Europe and caused for billions in damage through the world." Here's hoping it works on us, too.

44 comments

  1. Virus Fund, let's do it. by Ckwop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why vacinate just the chickens? While it would have to mutate in order to pass between humans it seems plausible (to a laymen in this field) that a vacine that protects against bird-flu might also offer some protection against the mutent.

    This break-through is just what we've needed: A fast way to make a lot of flu vaccines. The question now is, do we now have enough time to take a side swipe at bird-flu before it makes the transition to a human form? At any rate, even if it does make the transition, I do believe this would be the last major flu pandemic.

    The next time people will not be so complacent. The billions the first-world nations have just pledged to fight Avian Flu will be pledged much more quickly. In fact, I think the UN will have a fund to tackle these kinds of nightmares and the money will be released immediately on discovery of a virus that is deadly to humans. Couple this with the fact we'll have better ways to sythentise vaccines. These new methods will hopefully deliver a suitable product on the order of days rather than months.

    It makes sense for us to set-up such a fund. For a start, the economic loss caused by bird flu will run in to trillions. So let's do it! Whether you're black or white, Palestinian or Israeli, Christian or Muslim this virus effects us all equally. Surely, even the most hardened tax-cutting Republican in the universe will agree that it's sensible to stump up money for this fund.

    Simon

    1. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by Eightyford · · Score: 1

      For a start, the economic loss caused by bird flu will run in to trillions.

      Really? Where'd you get that information? Anyways, for the rest of your post I agree with you completely.

      --
      Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
    2. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great. Another "fund" (a.k.a. more taxation/debt) to combat something that may never come to pass. We can't even pay for all the government we got now. Why go looking for more things to throw money at? Given China's population density, along with their poor living conditions in their farming communities, the infection rate would have to be higher and the percentage of death less. Shouting "PANDEMIC!!!" is way over reacting at this point.

      Want to protect yourself from the bird flu? Wash your hands more often.

      --
      Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
    3. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by XenoRyet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Only 80 deaths. That is not statisticaly signifigant in any size population.

      Not only do we not need an Avian Flu specific fund, the money already dedicated to the purpose was too much. There are litteraly thousands of more deadly illnesses out there, currently active, and currently transmitible between humans. Why should we spend billions on this one virus that has thus for only shown the potential for danger?

      The first world nations don't need to pledge to do anything on this yet. There is nothing to do yet, Avian influenza is not a threat, it only has potential to become a threat. It would be almost criminal to spend so much on a thus-far fairly begnine virus. First world nations need to have a little perspective before dedicating billions to the media's current favorite "crisis".

      No, I think the normal reaserch budgets will be more than sufficent to look into Avian Flu for the moment. Those extra billions would be much better spent in a miriad of other places.

      --
      If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
    4. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by (negative+video) · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Only 80 deaths. That is not statisticaly signifigant in any size population.
      The significance is that the manner of death was wholly unexpected. Young, strong people virtually never die from sudden lung inflammation. Tuberculosis, yes. Bacterial pneumonia, yes. But their own immune system just suddenly deciding to burn their lungs to the ground? Never happens.
      There are litteraly thousands of more deadly illnesses out there, currently active, and currently transmitible between humans.
      True, but most of them are either difficult to transmit (HIV, hepatitis A, rabies), are virulent and have obvious symptoms so that quarantine can be effective (ebola), or produce lasting immunity (bacterial meningitis, cholera).

      Influenza, however, combines most of the worst things into a single virus. It is an RNA virus, so it mutates rapidly. It has a tiny genome, providing a minimal target for the adaptive immune system. It spreads easily through the air, allowing less-ill carriers to spread it widely (the Tyhoid Mary effect). It starts out by pretending to be the common cold, so carriers ignore it and continue to expose the community. Very few disease organisms combine these factors, and most of those that do (measles, smallpox, diptheria) are mercifully vulnerable to vaccines.

      Why should we spend billions on this one virus that has thus for only shown the potential for danger?
      Because the potential is real and quantified, not blindy extrapolated from fears. Influenza does regularly sweep across the world, leaving death and destruction in its wake. It does regularly kill people even in wealthy countries. The 1918 pandemic did send millions of strong, healthy adults to their deaths.

      Certain strains are right now killing strong, healthy adults. Certain other strains do right now have the molecular factors for extreme transmissibility. It is an absolute guarantee that those strains will fuse in a single infected person, producing a new strain that has both virulence and transmissibility. When that happens, we will have another 1918-style pandemic on our hands.

      And unless we can rapidly turn-around production of a strong vaccine, that pandemic will strike down millions of us. On the basis of missed work days alone, it makes sense to pour billions of dollars into preventing a flu pandemic.

    5. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by SputnikPanic · · Score: 1

      We'll never know the total death toll from the 1918 flu but estimates range from 20 million at the low end to as many as 100 million. That's a massive range, yes -- records of that time are hard to come by and the world was, of course, at war -- but accepting even only the 20 million figure, it's difficult to find any other event in world history that has caused so many deaths is such a short period of time. According to a book I read a couple of years back (Flu, the author of which escapes me at the moment), in the year that the pandemic raged, the average U.S. life expectancy fell by something like 10 full years. And the numbers surrounding the 1918 flu become even more astonishing when one considers that only 2.5 percent of those infected died. The prospect of a similar pandemic today is, to me, beyond harrowing.

    6. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a so-called chicken cancer virus that is also RNA-based and has been known about for over a century without spreading to humans?

      Biology is not my field, but the thing that bothers me is that the virus has to mutate before it will readily transfer between humans. Is a vaccine developed now going to be effective against a virus that doesn't exist yet? The article skirted that question at the end and didn't sound all that positive.

    7. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      At any rate, even if it does make the transition, I do believe this would be the last major flu pandemic. The next time people will not be so complacent. The billions the first-world nations have just pledged to fight Avian Flu will be pledged much more quickly.

      The thing is, I'm not sure how much money matters here. The problem seems to be that we don't know how to make an effective vaccine to fight a mutant strain until we've got a sample of the actual strain; generic H5N1 isn't good enough. The time to make that vaccine once a sample is available seems to depend on who you ask and how much faith they have in recent advances that could speed things up, but it's still measured in months, during which time anyone unlucky enough to catch the infection won't have good chances.

      It doesn't sound like money is really the problem. You could pay the medical experts more, but there are still only so many people in the world capable of researching this area, and I doubt they're going slowly because they want a pay rise.

      For now, it seems our best bets are to research ways to shorten the sample->vaccine time, and develop plans to isolate any outbreaks as much as possible with the goal of slowing the spread until a vaccine can be produced and distributed.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by (negative+video) · · Score: 2, Informative
      Biology is not my field, but the thing that bothers me is that the virus has to mutate before it will readily transfer between humans.
      Not necessarily. What can happen is that avian and human flu can infect one host at the same time. Even by viral standards, influenza is sloppy, so new viruses would be made with genes from both types. If a combination virus includes an avian virulence factor and a human transmissibility factor, you get the Martian Death Flu.
      Is a vaccine developed now going to be effective against a virus that doesn't exist yet?
      The odds are decent it will. Most genes contain "conserved" regions, stretches of DNA that have to be just so for the gene to work. (Most mutations there break the chemistry.) Even over centuries of mutation, those regions change very little. If you have antibodies to those, your immune system will have a leg up when you get infected, which might mean the difference between misery and death.

      For a combination virus, a vaccine ought to be quite effective. It's just a matter of administering avian flu proteins in a vaccine. Unfortunately, most current flu vaccines are made by an obsolete process where the virus is grown in chicken eggs, and avian flu kills the eggs right away. We desperately need turn-key industrial systems for making vaccines. Culturing viruses is too prone to failure.

    9. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Biology is not my field, but the thing that bothers me is that the virus has to mutate before it will readily transfer between humans.
      Not necessarily. What can happen is that avian and human flu can infect one host at the same time. Even by viral standards, influenza is sloppy, so new viruses would be made with genes from both types. If a combination virus includes an avian virulence factor and a human transmissibility factor, you get the Martian Death Flu.

      Okay. That still sounds like a mutation to me.

      Is a vaccine developed now going to be effective against a virus that doesn't exist yet?
      The odds are decent it will. . .

      "Decent odds" are hard to quantify and cover a very wide range depending on your POV. Everything is a tradeoff. Apparently, we already have a leg up on the appropriate process for producing a vaccine if the need should arise. I still haven't heard anything that supports spending the billions you want to put into immediate reaction to a possible threat. It's not an attack on your expertise, just a pragmatic view of the real world.

    10. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      If a combination virus includes an avian virulence factor and a human transmissibility factor, you get the Martian Death Flu.
      Okay. That still sounds like a mutation to me.
      It's more of a new hybrid species, like mules and triticale.
      I still haven't heard anything that supports spending the billions you want to put into immediate reaction to a possible threat.
      Just spend a few seconds thinking through the math. A bad influenza pandemic would kill around 1% of young, healthy people (1918 flu killed 2.5% of those infected). The U.S. has about 75 million people in the 15-34 age group, so that would mean about a million would die. About $500k/person/lifetime in economic productivity would be lost, destroying roughly $500 billion dollars of future GDP.

      I expect a fast-turnaround vaccine system could be implemented for perhaps a billion dollars. So if a severe pandemic occurs more often than every few centuries, buying the vaccine system gives a net profit.

      So how often does a severe respiratory virus pandemic occur? Naturally we get a bad one every few decades. We also have to worry about synthetic plagues. Within a decade or three, the cost of gene synthesis will fall to a few cents a base pair, and every death cult in the world will be making custom plagues. Already today, well-funded scientists have built polio and 1918 flu from scratch in the laboratory. Smallpox could be resurrected for possibly as little as a few million dollars, certainly less than $50M. Quick-turn vaccine capability will soon become very important, like long-range bombers in the '50s.

    11. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      It's more of a new hybrid species, like mules and triticale.

      Mules don't replicate. I don't think the analogy works.

      Just spend a few seconds thinking through the math. A bad influenza pandemic would kill around 1% of young, healthy people (1918 flu killed 2.5% of those infected). The U.S. has about 75 million people in the 15-34 age group, so that would mean about a million would die. About $500k/person/lifetime in economic productivity would be lost, destroying roughly $500 billion dollars of future GDP.

      Forgive me, but your "math" seems more like incomplete statistics. The elderly are typically hit hardest by influenza. Given our current problems supporting the entitlement programs (and as harsh as it may seem), such a pandemic might prove economically helpful. As someone who is about to become part of that unwanted drain on the economy, I can say that. And the flu isn't a bad way to go. I nearly died from it about twenty-five years ago, and I just wanted to go to sleep. I wasn't all that happy at the time when my fiance and some of my relatives dragged me into the emergency room.

      As for the whole productivity/GDP thing, I think that's more bad statistics. It assumes there are no replacements, and that everyone is productive. It's like those statistics showing how much smoking costs the country. They always ignore the costs from dying from other causes and the increased costs from old-age entitlements (and no, I don't smoke). If you're going to pump billions into preventative medicine, then it should go into further cancer research, but that won't get headlines on prime-time TV.

    12. Re:Virus Fund, let's do it. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      Forgive me, but your "math" seems more like incomplete statistics. The elderly are typically hit hardest by influenza.
      By ordinary influenza. Virulent influenza evokes a powerful response by the immune system, causing a raging viral pneumonia that kills within hours. It therefore hits people with strong immune systems the hardest, which means the young and healthy drop like flies. (The SARS virus does the same thing, which is why it got such attention.) For those with weaker immune systems--such as infants and the elderly--it is just a severe flu.
      And the flu isn't a bad way to go. I nearly died from it about twenty-five years ago, and I just wanted to go to sleep.
      Pneumonia ain't called the "old man's friend" for nothing.
      As for the whole productivity/GDP thing, I think that's more bad statistics. It assumes there are no replacements, and that everyone is productive.
      My numbers were just a general estimate, based on mean productivity of the population. Even if you just go by the sunk cost of raising and educating the dead, it's still a huge number. 1918-type pandemics are too rare to make solid predictions anyway.
      If you're going to pump billions into preventative medicine, then it should go into further cancer research, but that won't get headlines on prime-time TV.
      It is worth noting that several major cancers and other diseases are caused by viruses: cervical cancer, Epstein-Barr leukemias, post-herpetic neuralgia, and probably others. Furthermore, some of the most promising new cancer treatments are based on antibodies, for which we'd like a machine that cranks out custom proteins to order--the same machine I want for vaccine production. Oh, and the same technology would be great for making peptide hormones, a largely unexplored frontier in drug design.

      I still want fast turn-around vaccines to fight engineered plauges. I fully expect to see resurrected smallpox on the loose within my lifetime.

      If you're going to pump billions into preventative medicine, then it should go into further cancer research, ...
      And obesity. Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome aren't as dramatic as a tumor, but they sure suck a lot out of the economy. Keeping blind amputees patched together costs a lot.
  2. yet another drug that will be overused by kevin.fowler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Factory farmed chickens are already pumped full of antibiotics... does this mean that they will now be pumped full of HSN1 vaccine in the future? Both are theorecically used for the purpose of keeping them healthy, but the long term negative effects of eating antibiotic-riddled chicken is still not known. HSN1 vaccine passed from chicken to human might not have the happiest effects.

    --
    Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    1. Re:yet another drug that will be overused by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the dusty recesses of my memory, I seem to recall some experimentation where they sprayed benign bacteria on chickens. The theory goes that the competition for resources and the ample supply of non-harmful bacteria would reduce the sustainable population of harmful bacteria.

      I find it interesting that being too clean of all bacteria can actually have harmful effects. We're really colony organisms after all. I wondered whatever happened with it?

      --
      Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
    2. Re:yet another drug that will be overused by goarilla · · Score: 1

      why would someone overuse a vaccin
      overusing a vaccin will not increase their effect
      nor will it make the poultry or cattle healthier or juicier.
      ...a vaccin is to be taken once

      you take vaccins which contain death or weakened viruses so your
      immunesystem has the time to adapt itself and produce proper anti bodies
      once the anti bodies are created they will be in your body untill the day you die
      and you will be immune against the virus

      obviously you don't know how a vaccin nor antibiotics work!

    3. Re:yet another drug that will be overused by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is in eating chicken pumped full of antibiotics (the cooking will destroy them,) but rather that it creates a population perfectly suited for breeding antibiotic resistant strains of disease.

      For example now we're starting to see some pretty beefy strain of salmonella.

  3. Hungary's minister of health vaccinated aswell... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    ...a few months ago and here it is why it's stupid.

    This is the animal-vaccine they are talking about. It offers next to nothing protection from a yet non-existant human to human spreading version of avian flu.

    Btw, Hungary's one of the leading vaccine developing countries in avian flu research.

    There are already a huge demand for the animal-to-human spreading vaccination worldwide because of the huge media hype. This version of the disease only kills people with frequent contact with animals, still people are led to believe that they need protection.

    Btw, as researchers said here in Hungary, it would take around two weeks to create a working vaccine for a human/human version of avian flu and to start mass producing it, so I'd wish people would just stop believing the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING WE'LL GONNA DIE!!!1111" propaganda flowing from the media.

    Just my take on the issue.

    Although if people want to believe go do them: Hungary's govt. is expecting $10+ billion dollars of income from the vaccine and related research.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  4. Hey idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Avian flu is a virus. A vaccine does not work the same way as an antibiotic. The birds get dosed once or twice and then their bodies learn to fight of Avian Flu. The vaccine does not stick around in their systems for a long time.

        Speling Troll

  5. 1918 Flu was Bird Flu by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently researchers were able to recreate the 1918 flu that killed 100 million around the world, and what they found was a little alarming. The 1918 flu jumped directly from birds to humans and became transmissable between humans.

    If the current bird flu manages that, there will be an 18 month siege on the economy the likes of which our generations have never seen as borders are shut down and vital supply chains are broken.

    Hopefully this new advance offers some hope. Who knows if a pandemic will happen (well, one will happen without a doubt because they have on average every 30 years for the last 300, but we just don't know if this bird flu is the next one), it's just a roll of the dice everytime a human gets infected whether it will mutate.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    1. Re:1918 Flu was Bird Flu by vertinox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the current bird flu manages that, there will be an 18 month siege on the economy the likes of which our generations have never seen as borders are shut down and vital supply chains are broken.

      It would also mean, computer technology, telecomutting, and communication via internet would be much more important than it is now. Possibly creating an internet only society to keep from getting each infected.

      Although maybe not really desirable...

      I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to go to people's houses in a clean suit to fix their connection.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:1918 Flu was Bird Flu by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is, what happens when the power goes out because everyone who works at the powerplant is dead, infected, taking care of sick family, or unable / unwilling to come to work?

      Same with the ISP, the hospital (which has no medicine anyway), the grocery store (which has no food anyway), the gas station (which has no gas or goodies to sell anyway).

      People don't realize how much our society relies on JIT, Just In Time delivery. Most stores have less than a week of food on hand and it is constantly replenished. Most gas stations have less than a week of gas onhand. Most hospitals have less than a few weeks medicine on hand.

      If the bird flu becomes human to human transmissible, it won't be pretty, and we won't be sitting at home surfing the `net with a Starbucks. Hopefully we'll have food, water, and electricity.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    3. Re:1918 Flu was Bird Flu by vertinox · · Score: 1

      The problem is, what happens when the power goes out because everyone who works at the powerplant is dead, infected, taking care of sick family, or unable / unwilling to come to work?

      Same with the ISP, the hospital (which has no medicine anyway), the grocery store (which has no food anyway), the gas station (which has no gas or goodies to sell anyway).

      Haven't you seen Day of the Dead? (j/k their exscuse was that everything was nuclear and was why they had electricity was on in the mall)

      But seriously, the internet was supposed to survive a nuclear strike from the soviets. Sure we'd be our basements or bunkers trying to whether it out, but people would run on generators and ad hoc systems and possibly satelitte modems.

      We could probaly get away JIT would work because if 1/3 of the population is dead then there is 1/3 more resources not being used. I figure a worse case scenario would be just like the black death in the middle ages in which people found themselves with abundance of food and higher wages (because of shortage of labor). A great deal of people died, but a great deal of people lived and carried on life as usual.

      We would most likley adapt and form our society around not being around each other as much.

      Not that I would like to live under such a scenario because the world is fine with me as it is.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  6. Pay attention: by WigginX · · Score: 1

    "This virus has thus far killed 80 people"

    RTF whatever. It's unfortunate that you were modded interesting, when your comment is so violently misinformed.

  7. I think this is a case of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fowl-er play. Maybe he's just too chicken to try it. If anything his argument is poultry.

    1. Re:I think this is a case of by kevin.fowler · · Score: 1

      p.s. My life was hell when I used to play baseball.

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
  8. Okay, ignore the "bird flu" hype for a little bit. by mmell · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The research described in TFA could have repercussions for immunization and vaccination programs worldwide. That the researchers are concentrating on the H5N1 avian flu virus is predictable given the recent concerns about the potential for a lethal pandemic, but the research is applicable to a broad variety of virii such as the multiple influenza strains, which annually result in literally thousands of deaths worldwide, in part due to the lengthy and complex process involved in isolating, identifying, characterizing and controlling the virus particles involved.

    We're dealing with a family of virii which mutates with frightening rapidity; speeding up the ability to respond to these mutations strikes me as an incredible advance which will ultimately save thousands of lives per year (assuming, of course, that this research is verifiable).

  9. Isn't this bigger news... by prSpectiv2 · · Score: 1

    ...than yet another Google/Apple/MS press release? Perhaps this is off topic, but I'm glad /. now lists the "small" topics because the "big" ones aren't worth their hype lately.

    Let's see... saving lives or advancing the cause of celebrity? Which is more important in a Slashdot world?

    --
    Nice guys don't finish last. In reality, they're abducted halfway through the race.
  10. Why are we talking about Avian Flu by XenoRyet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seriously, why are we talking about this as if it's dangerous to humans? The blurb states that this virus has killed 80 people so far. Regular old influeza kills 250,000 to 500,000 per year. I know there is the risk of it spreading and mutating and causing a pandemic. But is that really so likely that all this attention is justified?

    It reminds me of the West Nile Virus hype. We heard about West Nile for months and months as if it was the black death or some such thing. For the record West Nile produces mild flu-like symptoms. You might catch it, have it run it's cycle, and be healthy again and just think you had a bad day. It only ever killed people who probably would have been done in by a stiff breeze. Yet this was newsworthy material.

    I don't understand this facination in the media with obscure exotic desises that don't have any real impact on world heath. Lets get some perspective before we claim the sky is falling.

    --
    If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
    1. Re:Why are we talking about Avian Flu by prSpectiv2 · · Score: 1

      see mmell's post, two clicks above yours

      --
      Nice guys don't finish last. In reality, they're abducted halfway through the race.
    2. Re:Why are we talking about Avian Flu by MtlDty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Avian flu is now endemic amongst birds in South Asia, and was reportedly suspected to be endemic amongst birds in Turkey (which I still find bitterly ironic)

      It may have only killed 80 people so far, but thats over 50% of the 150 or so people that have been infected. If the mortality rate is as severe when the virus mutates into a form more transmitable between humans then we're in real trouble - estimates of 150,000,000 deaths worldwide would ensure that someone you know personally will die.

      There arent many professionals in the field that believe we can escape an imminent birdflu pandemic. So, in short, yes - it is likely that this will turn into a pandemic and we should all be as prepared as possible for that.

    3. Re:Why are we talking about Avian Flu by klui · · Score: 1

      Regular influenza has the potential to kill individuals whose immune system is weak. Avian influenza kills individuals with strong, healthy immune systems. Big difference. People who say "I have a strong immune system, Avian Flu won't affect me" are clueless. In fact, if an outbreak occurs, they'll be the first ones to go.

    4. Re:Why are we talking about Avian Flu by nbritton · · Score: 1

      "it may have only killed 80 people so far, but thats over 50% of the 150 or so people that have been infected."


      53.3%, but, that number is based only on reported cases.

  11. Wippety-skippety... by NerveGas · · Score: 1


        Making the vaccine is just the first step. Manufacturing ramp-ups and other time delays mean that it will still probably be at least two or three years before this vaccine is actually in use.

        Of course, it will likely be in use where it's needed most - in Asia - sooner than it is here. That's not because of any altruistic motives on the part of the drug manufacturers (although they often claim that it is), it's because those countries have far fewer regulations, safeguards, and old-fashioned red-tape in place.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  12. Here's a dollar, buy a clue by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One wonders what you would have said about the Spanish flu which became pandemic and killed millions worldwide. Before it mutated to become highly transmissible and took off, it also only showed "the potential for danger". Afterward, of course, it moved far too fast for vaccination to stop it.

    I'm almost afraid to ask what you think of the successful eradication of smallpox, or the efforts to finally get rid of polio (also a mere handful of deaths each year... due completely to our efforts to do the same to it as we did with smallpox).

    --

    Sustainability and energy independence essay
  13. Current strain vs. Pandemic strain by GWSuperfan · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that vaccines are generally strain-specific to the virus they target (hence the new Flu shot every year). Since this vaccine is for the current H5N1 Strain, which does not seem to transmit human-to-human effectively enough to really pose much of a pandemic risk, what good is it going to be against a mutated strain that actually poses a risk? Would it be effective as a starting point for a vaccine against a future strain? Or is this just something that will save the animals but have minimal if any human application?

    --
    Fight psychopharmacological mccarthyism. http://www.norml.org/
  14. Genetic Engineering... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    A lot of folks out there, particularly in the United States, believe that:

    • Genetic engineering is evil.
    • Scientists, and especially biologists, are atheistic minions of Satan out to destroy True Christianity (tm)
    • The End Times (tm) are upon us, and God will unleash all manner of Bad Stuff, including plagues, to usher in the Apocalypse

    So, I can't help but wonder what these folks will do when the fecal material hits the air circulating device. Will they stand by their principles, or will they rationalize their way into the vaccination line?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Genetic Engineering... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to dispute all that, but I'd give the "common folk" a little more credit. While they might have problems with the flourescent pigs mentioned on Slashdot recently, the production of vaccines isn't all that strange. It has long been common to apply a mild infection to prevent worse. It used to be a tradition for parents to take their children to a household where another child had measles or chicken pox to get it over with early before it became a life-threatening illness later in life.

      There weren't any noticable problems getting religous parents into line so their kids could get smallpox or polio vaccinations. I've got the scars to prove it.

    2. Re:Genetic Engineering... by Hal9000_sn3 · · Score: 1

      I am sure that when push comes to shove, the folks will have convinced themselves that an all-knowing loving God can use the evil Genetic Engineering, the atheistic minions, to benefit the chosen few in whatever mysterious way He wishes. And, that the chosed need to be kept around until the correct Apocalyptic Plague, cause dying of the previous plague might cause one to suffer some afterlife inconveniences. So, their principles need not be compromised, because their logic need not be rational. And their rationalizations needn't be logical.

    3. Re:Genetic Engineering... by catahoula10 · · Score: 1

      Here is a principle: God does not want FOOLS for sons and daughters. He wants smart folks that know how to protect themselves from the evil that infests this world.
      Even if that protection comes from using wicked people, their wicked wealth or even their wicked genetic engineering.

      You claim to know the principles that are taught in the christian faith when you ask if "they will stand by their principles" or use science to save themselves, yet, you did not know the principle i state above taught by Jesus himself. Why is that?

      Luke, Chapter 16. See for yourself.


      --
      This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
      Catahoula!
    4. Re:Genetic Engineering... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      So, I can't help but wonder what these folks will do when the fecal material hits the air circulating device. Will they stand by their principles, or will they rationalize their way into the vaccination line?

      1: The plagues have begun.
      2: I'm still here.
      3: The Rapture has been and gone, and didn't take me, and so few were saved that we didn't even notice it.
      4: Therefore, I'm not one of the Saved.
      5: Therefore, I'm one of the Damned.
      6: Therefore, I might as well please myself and have the flu shots.
      7: Furthermore, I might as well please myself and loot the nearest electronics store. The owners are Damned too, and it's no sin to steal from the Damned, and since I'm Damned anyway it doesn't matter if it IS a sin...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  15. Is it safe? by Steven+Reddie · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there an expected pandemic many years ago where a vaccine was quickly developed and proceeded to be deliverered to all Americans, but in the aftermath it was determined that the actual virus only killed one person and the vaccine killed hundreds?

    I recall reading about it, but don't remember any other details other than the person killed as a result of the virus may have been a navy guy.