Slashdot Mirror


Indian Scientists Develop Vaccine for Bird Flu

William Robinson writes "Indian Scientists have succeeded in developing a vaccine against the bird flu disease that has affected poultry business in many parts of the world. This was formally announced, and ICAR Director-General Mangala Rai described this as a big step forward in tackling the highly pathogenic avian influenza, commonly called the bird flu. Indonesia, who has recently reported their 42nd victim of bird flu, will now have one less thing to worry about."

145 comments

  1. Excellent! by rpjs · · Score: 4, Funny

    No need to worry about bird flu any more, just the incipient WWIII brewing in the Middle East...

    1. Re:Excellent! by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thankfully Isrealis, Palestinians, and Lebanese don't tend to fly migratory patterns that cross New Hampshire.

      Mass pandemic scares me more than $100 oil, even with a 10mpg car and a 15mpg truck.

      Barely, though. I had to fill the car up this morning!

    2. Re:Excellent! by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >a 10mpg car and a 15mpg truck.
      What kind of car does that sort of mileage? i thought they pretty much all managed 30-50mpg these days? Heck, even my crummy Ford Focus does about 45mpg on a long run.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    3. Re:Excellent! by AviLazar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Until you can 100% prove that some country, other then Israel (which is not confirmed but many experts assume they do), can launch an intercontinental ballistic nuclear strike there is no reason to be an alarmist. None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability. On a conventional warfare (non-nuclear) it requires sizeable infrastructure in a military - and very few militaries have this infrastructure.
      BTW, I am not counting India/Pakistan in middle east group.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    4. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Read history - WWI was started by an assasination and followed up by some pretty poor diplomacy.

      Remember - George Bush is not exactly a great diplomat.

    5. Re:Excellent! by utnapistim · · Score: 2, Informative
      No need to worry about bird flu any more, just the incipient WWIII brewing in the Middle East...

      Ummm ... no, not really, at least not for Israel. I've been in Tel Aviv for two months now, and it's - for lack of a better term - "business as usual".

      If it was by what you get on CNN, I'd have expected to crawl under debris by now; In truth, life goes on unaffected in 90% of the country, but that's nothing sensational, so it won't probably appear on the news.

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    6. Re:Excellent! by Instine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod up informative /\

      The worry comes from how the rest of the world reacts to this (and of course the worry in the effected area is very real and worth noting!). If Syria, and Iran, and Afghanistan can coerce Pakistan (or some other sizable ally) then World War is not far away. This was unlikely before. But after questionable actsperformedin the area, committed by Israeli allies, this is more likely. If Pakistan were to 'join in' then it means two opposing aggressors have Nuclear 'deterrents'.

      As for Bird flu. Great news!

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    7. Re:Excellent! by aplusjimages · · Score: 2

      Honestly though, the news only reports on stuff they know viewers will watch. Would you watch news about zero attacks in some part of Tel Aviv? Here in Florida millions of people don't get attacked by aligators, so should the news report about those people instead of the people who did get attacked? That's why I can't stand watching the news, it just dumps all this depressing stuff in your lap and at the end they bid you good night. ps - thumbs up on the bird flu vacine

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    8. Re:Excellent! by drDugan · · Score: 1

      I was shocked when I looked for my last car about 6 months ago. most sedans I looked at leasing got around 20-24 MPG highway and 18-22 city.

      there seemed to be huge variation - some were mid 30- and higher, but it was not the rule, the exception. -- I"m not an expert, and I wan't making the choice based on milage. After looking, I was surprised at how low the numbers were.

      I wish I had my motorcycle still, where 50+ was the norm, but people would need to accept riding gear in professional sales meetings, or I'll be changing clothes 4 times a day.

    9. Re:Excellent! by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      I drive a focus, and only avg about 30mpg, mostly highway. How the hell do you get 45mpg???????? Please let us in on the secret!!! (yes, gas is $3.15 around here!!!)

      --
      I got nothin'
    10. Re:Excellent! by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      I average 40mpg in my new 2007 Toyota Yaris. I could get more if I didn't do 80mph to work everyday. ;)

    11. Re:Excellent! by Scarblac · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      But how's life in Beirut? Business as usual too?

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    12. Re:Excellent! by Erwos · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the risk of igniting a real flame war, life in Beirut is never really business as usual, because the central government there doesn't have real power over their entire country. They've been occupied by the Israelis and the Syrians over the years, and even once the Syrians and Israelis were gone, they couldn't figure out how to get Hezbollah under control. Lebanon is a country I generally sympathize with - they've gotten screwed by a number of parties in the region and outside of it, and once they get their domestic situation under control, they'll probably be a stabilizing influence in the region.

      I do agree with your implication towards the poster who somewhat blithely replied that Tel Aviv was doing OK. For one thing, a good bit of northern Israel isn't doing so hot (witness the shelling of Haifa), and it's a bit crass of him to ignore his own countrymen. Second, the folks in Beirut generally don't want this conflict - they were dragged into it by Hezbollah in the south. Maybe once the Israelis decimate Hezbollah, they can take some real control of their country. Well, here's hoping...

      Anyways, back on topic: the Middle East does have substantial interests in poultry, since religious Muslims and Jews don't eat pork. This kind of a vaccine is quite helpful in protecting their flocks and themselves - and that's one less thing they all have to worry about in these troubled times.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    13. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not business as usual here in Haifa. (About an hours drive North of Tel-Aviv). Its a little scary. You have less than a minute (usually about 10 secs) after the siren goes off before you hear the explosion (courtesy of Hezbollah). They arent huge, and come sporadically, but if its not your lucky day, then its see you later, mate.

    14. Re:Excellent! by mdozturk · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cover of Sunday's New York Times had a picture of 16 dead Lebanese, which were mostly children. Business as usual?

    15. Re:Excellent! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Actually for trucks and SUVs, that's pretty standard MPG ratings. Their heavier, thus require more power (gas) to move them.

    16. Re:Excellent! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Thats horrid; I have a TL and it gets 30mpg highway, and the TL is heavier than your focus.

    17. Re:Excellent! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. You don't need to have nukes to start WW3. WW1 was started because of all the alliances dragged nations in that weren't directly involved. Given that Russia, the US and other countries back different sides, it seems to be a pretty similar situtation. If Russia starts helping Lebanon, do you think the US would sit back and let Israel be overrun?

    18. Re:Excellent! by sinai · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Business as usual, except now instead of my alarm clock waking me up in the morning, the distant sounds of shelling and gunfire demand, "Rise and Shine!" (Though here in Rafah it surely can't be as loud as it is in TA or Haifa.)

    19. Re:Excellent! by hotsauce · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe once the Israelis decimate Hezbollah, they can take some real control of their country.

      Or maybe Hezbollah really does represent the country, at least the south? Kinda like Hamas really does represent Palestine? The inconvenient truth may be that you may not actually like your neighbor's governments, but you still have to learn to get along. Decimating them doesn't change how your neighbors feel. In any case, Israel hasn't been able to decimate them in almost 20 years despite their best efforts, what makes you think they can now?

      ...and it's a bit crass of him to ignore his own countrymen.

      I think it's a bit crass to let lines on a map change your empathy for another human being.
    20. Re:Excellent! by TenLow · · Score: 1

      Depends on what and how you drive. A 60's muscle car with a 400ci engine wont get poo for mileage, and any car will have bad mileage if you floor it all the time.

    21. Re:Excellent! by tgd · · Score: 1

      First generation Porsche 911 with a race configuration engine running a little on the rich side and a power curve that necessitates keeping it above 4500rpm. 10mpg is optimistic... thats when I'm just putzing around.

      Cost me $10 to drive to work today.

      And was SO worth it.

    22. Re:Excellent! by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      When you ignore this part, yea my statment is incorrect, but you shouldn't ignore part of my statement: "None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability"

      I do not think Russia will help Lebanon in a military fashion (they might medically), and thus the US will not get involved in a military fashion. Those that have the power to wage world war do not want world war and know what that means. It is what kept the cold war from spiraling to WW3. Luckily, the extremists who are willing to wage this war do not have the ability to do so.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    23. Re:Excellent! by utnapistim · · Score: 1
      I do agree with your implication towards the poster who somewhat blithely replied that Tel Aviv was doing OK. For one thing, a good bit of northern Israel isn't doing so hot (witness the shelling of Haifa), and it's a bit crass of him to ignore his own countrymen.

      It seems I came out wrong. I don't see the situation as ok; All I wanted to say was that what I see in the street is completely different from what I perceive on the news. I realize I don't have an accurate perception of it, since I cannot watch the israeli news (I don't understand the language) but from CNN I get a strong message I'm in a warzone, and outside nothing changed: I come to office as usual, people are not more sober around me and my israelian coleagues behave completely normal.

      I think it's a bit crass to let lines on a map change your empathy for another human being.

      Again, sorry if I came out that way.

      I wanted to say that the conflict is distorted by the media. I've had my family looking for me on the net all day (probably after each news report) to ask me if I need to get out of the country, if there were bombings, if I am safe and so on - and it's strikingly different from what I see around me.

      I am also on two minds about the current situation:

      on one hand, the conflict is escalated by Hezbollah (and was started by them); Israel told the Lebanese to stop them since they were on the Lebanese territory and the Lebanese did not. I also think if they start giving in to Hezbollah demands they are sending the message they can be manipulated by the taking of hostages.

      on the other hand, Israel are bombing, they are attacking and killing pople.

      I am also thankfull that the bombings didn't reach this place.

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    24. Re:Excellent! by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Do you drive a manual? I drive an automatic and my buddies who have manual foci get around 35-38 on avg.

      --
      I got nothin'
    25. Re:Excellent! by Erwos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They may or may not represent the feelings of the Lebanese people in the south - but they are _not_ an official agency of the Lebanese government, and are thus not recognized internationally as being representative of the internationally-recognized Lebanese government.

      The reason they may be able to decimate them now is that their foolish, unprovoked declaration of war on Israel may have finally lost them the popular support that every guerilla group needs to survive.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    26. Re:Excellent! by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Many people still drive older vehicles. Lots of them get crap mileage. Try driving a 440 six-pack charger, or an olds with a 505 sometime...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Excellent! by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >How the hell do you get 45mpg????????
      Dunno! It's a 1.6 Zetec (UK model) if that helps. The Ford rating is something like 48mpg for motorways I think.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    28. Re:Excellent! by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      That's the funny thing actually. My 400ci firebird got between 8-10mpg, but it didn't matter how I drove it. Conversely my C4(previous gen corvette) with the L98/350ci got close to 30mpg on longer trips.

      So listen up eco-freaks, big engines != environmental nightmares. You don't have to drive that Prius/Civic in order to get reasonable mileage.


      Depends on what and how you drive. A 60's muscle car with a 400ci engine wont get poo for mileage, and any car will have bad mileage if you floor it all the time.
    29. Re:Excellent! by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Do you drive a manual?
      Is there any other sort? ;-)

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    30. Re:Excellent! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cover of Sunday's New York Times had a picture of 16 dead Lebanese, which were mostly children. Business as usual?

      Yes, that is business as usual. The terrorists in Lebanon go to areas filled with civilians, shoot things at Israel, then run. Israel shoots back where the terrorists shot from, and the Terrorists succeed in their real goal - getting their own people killed by Israel. The People in Lebanon acting in a manner intended to kill Lebanese is business as usual. That they happened to be children was just a bonus for them.

    31. Re:Excellent! by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Good thing we bribed Pakistan with all of those F-16's. The arabs have wanted Isreal gone since the 1940's. The only reason they are still around is because of the USA. Now that the arabs have nukes things are likely to get really interesting.

      The worry comes from how the rest of the world reacts to this (and of course the worry in the effected area is very real and worth noting!). If Syria, and Iran, and Afghanistan can coerce Pakistan (or some other sizable ally) then World War is not far away.
    32. Re:Excellent! by dannyboyumd · · Score: 1

      Great, what is my mom is going to do with her canned food stockpile now?

    33. Re:Excellent! by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Ah thats the difference. You lucky europeans get a much broader range of choices for your available engines. I have a 2.0 Duratec (zetec replacement), and really wish we had a choice of getting a 1.8 or 1.6.

      We get to choose between the 2.0 or 2.3 versions.

      --
      I got nothin'
    34. Re:Excellent! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, its an automatic (although I have a clutchless 'manual' mode).

    35. Re:Excellent! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Nukes don't need to come into play at all, and if push comes to shove, Russia may help Lebanon. Who knows what the shrub may do, he's already dragged this country into two wars. Nobody really wanted to get into WW1 either. Read up on how it started; it was similar, with smaller nations starting to fight each other, and slower dragging everyone else in.

    36. Re:Excellent! by mdozturk · · Score: 1

      Actually in this case the civilians were just following Israeli military orders. From the NY Times: "A Lebanese civilian convoy was hit near the coastal town of Tyre after fleeing the border village of Marwaheen, resulting in 16 deaths. The Israeli military said the area was a target because Hezbollah had used it to launch missiles, and regretted any civilian casualties. It was the deadliest single attack in the past four days of fighting. The villagers left after the Israeli military told them to evacuate over a loudspeaker, Reuters reported."

    37. Re:Excellent! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe Hezbollah really does represent the country, at least the south? Kinda like Hamas really does represent Palestine? The inconvenient truth may be that you may not actually like your neighbor's governments, but you still have to learn to get along.

      Maybe they do represent the south, but no, they don't have to learn to get along: Hezbollah's stated aim is the destruction of Israel. How the heck do you "get along" with someone when they've sworn to destroy you? The answer is you don't: you destroy them first. If that means destroying most of Lebanon, then so be it.

      Personally, I think the mideast is overdue for a very big and bloody conflict. On one hand, we have Israel that just wants to do their thing and stop getting harassed. They've taken crappy desert land and turned it into an oasis and a serious economic power. On the other hand, we have a bunch of Islamic nuts that have nothing better to do than terrorize Israel because they can't tolerate any non-Islamic countries in their midst. They've had plenty of time to build advanced nations in the same geographic area as Israel, but what have they accomplished? Nothing. Even worse, this conflict isn't about some radical guerillas, with innocent people caught in the middle. The people have actually elected these guerillas (Hamas and Hezbollah) to their governments, so that means the people actually back these groups' stated intentions of terrorism and destruction of Israel. Therefore, the people in these countries are perfectly acceptable targets for attack and destruction.

    38. Re:Excellent! by osobear · · Score: 1

      The cover of Sunday's New York Times had a picture of 16 dead Lebanese, which were mostly children. Business as usual?


      Yes, sadly.

    39. Re:Excellent! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Even worse, this conflict isn't about some radical guerillas, with innocent people caught in the middle. The people have actually elected these guerillas (Hamas and Hezbollah) to their governments, so that means the people actually back these groups' stated intentions of terrorism and destruction of Israel. Therefore, the people in these countries are perfectly acceptable targets for attack and destruction.

      The American people have elected George W. Bush to be their leader. George W. Bush has declared a War on Terror and stated his intention of destroying terrorists. Does this mean that American civilian population is now an acceptable target for terrorists to attack and destroy ?

      Either the civilian population is an acceptable target in a war or it is not. If it isn't, then it can't suddenly become acceptable because it's convenient and you don't like the people in question; if it is, then don't complain when you and your family are the ones targeted - after all, I'm sure there's someone in the world with a grudge against your nation.

      Not that any of this matters. Israel is simply going to keep on bombarding Lebanon and committing atrocities, and their victims are going to commit more atrocities in revenge, and Israel is then going to avenge that, and so on. It's going to go on until the bloodthirsty morons get tired of bleeding, and there's no sign of that happening, especially when both sides think that God is on their side.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    40. Re:Excellent! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The American people have elected George W. Bush to be their leader. George W. Bush has declared a War on Terror and stated his intention of destroying terrorists. Does this mean that American civilian population is now an acceptable target for terrorists to attack and destroy ?

      This is a stupid analogy. Substitute the word "criminals" for terrorists and you have a similar argument. No one's forcing anyone to be a terrorist or a criminal. Hezbollah wants to destroy the Israelis just because they exist.

      Either the civilian population is an acceptable target in a war or it is not. If it isn't, then it can't suddenly become acceptable because it's convenient and you don't like the people in question

      The problem with Hezbollah isn't that Israel doesn't like them or the Lebanese people; it's that Hezbollah has pledged to destroy Israel, and continually commits acts towards that goal. If someone's life goal is to kill you, the only thing you can do to protect yourself is to kill them first.

      Not that any of this matters. Israel is simply going to keep on bombarding Lebanon and committing atrocities, and their victims are going to commit more atrocities in revenge, and Israel is then going to avenge that, and so on. It's going to go on until the bloodthirsty morons get tired of bleeding, and there's no sign of that happening, especially when both sides think that God is on their side.

      Don't be an idiot. Israel never said god was on their side, and their moves are not religiously motivated like Hezbollah's. It's really simple: Hezbollah simply won't leave them alone, so they're taking preemptive action to destroy them. Is this really that hard for you to understand?

      As for atrocities, it's Hezbollah that is actively targetting civilians. Israel is targetting Hezbollah only. The problem is that Hezbollah is integrated with the civilian population, so it's impossible to not have any collateral damage.

      But I guess you're one of the ones who thinks Israel should just give up and die.

    41. Re:Excellent! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This is a stupid analogy. Substitute the word "criminals" for terrorists and you have a similar argument.

      Yes. You do. That's my point. Your argument is stupid. It essentially justifies terrorism. In fact Hezbollah could use it to justify any further terror strikes.

      No one's forcing anyone to be a terrorist or a criminal. Hezbollah wants to destroy the Israelis just because they exist.

      Since I don't belong to Hezbollah, I don't know their motives in depth. I won't take your word for them, since you are rather obviously biased. They don't matter, either, since the subject here is your claim that it's okay to kill civilians.

      The problem with Hezbollah isn't that Israel doesn't like them or the Lebanese people; it's that Hezbollah has pledged to destroy Israel, and continually commits acts towards that goal. If someone's life goal is to kill you, the only thing you can do to protect yourself is to kill them first.

      Please reread my comment. I didn't comment on killing Hezbollah fighters, I commented on your claim that it's acceptable to kill civilians. I simply fail to see why randomly killing noncombatants - commonly known as terrorism - suddenly becomes acceptable when it's a government of some country doing it.

      Don't be an idiot. Israel never said god was on their side, and their moves are not religiously motivated like Hezbollah's.

      Don't be ignorant. The whole reason Israel was founded where it was is that the judes believe it's their Promised Land, given to them by God. Whether the Israel government actually states this out loud is irrelevant; it's the reason why the country is where it is, and why so many judes have migrated there.

      It's really simple: Hezbollah simply won't leave them alone, so they're taking preemptive action to destroy them. Is this really that hard for you to understand?

      Well, Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah, and even if it could, another organization would rise in its place. Only thing the bombardment is doing is ensuring that the local terror organizations have no shortage of people who have lost their loved ones to Israeli strikes and are willing to take revenge, even if it kills them. And when they do, Israel will then avenge those strikes, and the cycle will continue. Neither side is capable of destroying the other and winning the conflict, so it goes on as long as there's people on either side willing to shed blood - theirs or anyone elses - for their cause.

      Is this really that hard for you to understand ?

      As for atrocities, it's Hezbollah that is actively targetting civilians. Israel is targetting Hezbollah only. The problem is that Hezbollah is integrated with the civilian population, so it's impossible to not have any collateral damage.

      I'm sure it will warm the cold dead hearts of the civilians killed as collateral damage to know that Israel had no ill will towards them and was actually targeting someone who happened to live in the same city. But how do you plan on explaining it to them - corpses have some notable problems in understanding speech, on the account of having no functional neurons ?

      But I guess you're one of the ones who thinks Israel should just give up and die.

      No, I'm one of those who think that murdering civilians is wrong, whether you are Hezbollah or the Army of Israel.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:Excellent! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes. You do. That's my point. Your argument is stupid. It essentially justifies terrorism. In fact Hezbollah could use it to justify any further terror strikes.

      Huh? How does my argument justify terrorism? You seem to be equating terrorists with legitimate governments. Yes, Bush sucks as a Pres, but you can't call a government a terrorist entity unless it has specifically done terroristic things, such as attacking a country's civilians directly (not the same as collateral damage) in order to destabilize it. I won't claim the war in Iraq was the greatest idea ever, but even with its questionable rationale, you can't claim it was waged directly and intentionally on civilians.

      Since I don't belong to Hezbollah, I don't know their motives in depth. I won't take your word for them, since you are rather obviously biased.

      Don't take my word for it; read about the group yourself. My understanding is that their sworn reason for existing is to annihilate Israel. Not to achieve peace or freedom, or anything rosy-sounding like that, but to destroy Israel utterly and completely. If you have a source that says differently, I'll be glad to read it, but I've read this in many media outlets.

      They don't matter, either, since the subject here is your claim that it's okay to kill civilians.

      Don't put words in my mouth. I said that it's impossible to avoid collateral damage, not that it's ok to kill civilians. There's a big difference there. I don't know of any war in modern history where civilians have not been killed, and this one's no different. This isn't like the 1700s when European armies lined up in neat rows on designated battlefields and politely took turns shooting at each other. How exactly do you propose that a terrorist network as large and well-armed as Hezbollah be destroyed without harming civilians who live in their midst?

      Please reread my comment. I didn't comment on killing Hezbollah fighters, I commented on your claim that it's acceptable to kill civilians. I simply fail to see why randomly killing noncombatants - commonly known as terrorism - suddenly becomes acceptable when it's a government of some country doing it.

      Again, you seem to be naively ignorant of the realities of war. If you don't even understand that civilians normally get killed in wars, then there's simply no point in trying to talk to you.

      Don't be ignorant. The whole reason Israel was founded where it was is that the judes believe it's their Promised Land, given to them by God. Whether the Israel government actually states this out loud is irrelevant; it's the reason why the country is where it is, and why so many judes have migrated there.

      The whole reason the USA and Canada were founded was because a bunch of Europeans came over on boats and displaced (and murdered) a lot of what we now call Native Americans. Guess what? That was a long time ago, before either of us were born (I hope). Get over it. I'm pretty sure no one in Hezbollah was alive in 1945; their leader sure doesn't look that old. There's now millions of people living in Israel? What do you propose to do? Move them all to a deserted island? Stupid statements like this show you to be a troll.

      Well, Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah, and even if it could, another organization would rise in its place. Only thing the bombardment is doing is ensuring that the local terror organizations have no shortage of people who have lost their loved ones to Israeli strikes and are willing to take revenge, even if it kills them. And when they do, Israel will then avenge those strikes, and the cycle will continue. Neither side is capable of destroying the other and winning the conflict, so it goes on as long as there's people on either side willing to shed blood - theirs or anyone elses - for their cause.
      Is this really that hard for you to understand ?


      I understand it just fine, though I disagree about Hezbollah being impossible to neutralize. Not totally destroy, per

  2. If confirmed ... by Petrushka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... I hope this will give at least some pause to all the tired old jokes about outsourcing. For supposedly open-minded people there're way too many racist jokes around here.

    1. Re:If confirmed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indeed. And considering the state of science education and research in the US, it won't be long until most medical breakthroughs will be coming from Asia and Europe.

      In the meantime, the workers in the US who don't have a Government, Medical, Law, or CEO position can save up their Walmart pay and maybe get some sort of charity or "alternative medicine" for their ills.

      Am I blaming India or Asia? Nope. Just the direction I see (the) US taking and our leadership's desire to cater towards the folks who want to keep us ignorant. I may have to emigrate to Canada myself. Fortunately, I love the snow! Hated Toronto in February, though!!!

    2. Re:If confirmed ... by utopianfiat · · Score: 1, Funny

      On another note, the vaccine is a dramatic change from the prior treatment for bird flu in india, which was "Just reformat"

      --
      +5, Truth
    3. Re:If confirmed ... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Curious. In hindsight, I could understand mods of "Troll"; bit silly of me in that regard. "Flamebait" I do not get at all, though.

  3. Birds or Humans ? by JohnHegarty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As the comment on the pages says... is this for the birds or humans ?

    1. Re:Birds or Humans ? by fletchermemorial · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's for humans. The Avian flu is not a serious things for birds. Think of it this way, a cold is shitty, granted, but it won't destroy your life. In very rare cases will a cold last longer than a week and a half, and even rarer for it to have a permanent effect. But if...a dog, somehow someway contracted a common cold, and was completely unprepared to accept the virus and combat it, the dog would die without much of a fight. Monkeys live with AIDS like it's nothing, but it destroys us. The Avian flu is a bird disease, and when cross-genus diseases spread, there's (as far as we know) no way to stop almost certain death. Yay for vaccines!

    2. Re:Birds or Humans ? by fmoliveira · · Score: 1

      Bird flu IS serious for birds. It kills them, and do it fast.

    3. Re:Birds or Humans ? by dc29A · · Score: 1

      It's for humans.

      I am not a biologist, far from it but how can they develop a vaccine for a disease that hasn't appeared yet? I mean this bird flu is supposed to mutate into a dangerous virus that could kill a lot of humans but scientists don't know the final version of the virus yet they developped a vaccine for it?

    4. Re:Birds or Humans ? by fletchermemorial · · Score: 1

      Similarly, the human Flu can kill humans. It's possible, even likely, but in juxtaposition with the Avian flu's effect on humans, it looks almost insignificant. Though, you're right..I did a little more looking after i posted and i learned that my inferred comparison of the avian flue being relatively harmless was wrong, perhaps i shouldn't have compared it to the common cold, rather Pneumonia might be a better choice. Either way, thank you for the clarification

    5. Re:Birds or Humans ? by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Look at the last sentence of the first paragraph here. This disease has already appeared in humans; it killed 42 in Indonesia.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    6. Re:Birds or Humans ? by drDugan · · Score: 1

      wait... I think this is a bit different

      by itself, a virus crossing species does not necessarily imply increased morbidity in the new species. In fact, typically, viruses inside other species have little or no effect at all. They usually don't function. Only in rare cases when a cross species jump occurs (typically through mutations/and viral DNA exchange with native viruses), then it MIGHT be dangerous.

      Note that in the case of bird flu, the reason people die is from the extreme overreaction by the immune system to the infection. You essentially end up drowning in your own fluids, caused by the immune system reaction. Tamiflu basically down-regulates the a person's immune response.

      IANA-virologist, nor am I an expert in epidemiology - but this is how I understand it.

      I share your excitement... antiseptics and vaccines are two human achievements that we can all be proud of. most of the rest of what we spend our energy on just keeps us all busy with "busi-ness".

    7. Re:Birds or Humans ? by drDugan · · Score: 1

      They can't, for sure.

      We are in an "arms race" between the viruses and the vaccines. THe other side (the viruses) can always recombine and mutate around the current vaccine. The virus we have not seen yet is bird flu in humans with high transmissibility. Until we see this in the wild, we can't possibly know (for sure) if a vaccine would work against it.

      The current process for annual flu vaccines are derived from a global search for current viruses, a bunch of annalysis, and a selction of strains which we THINK will be the flu that takes hold during the flu season. Mostly, those guesses are very good, and the flu vaccine covers a large number of different strains.

      They only way to really solve this issue would be to create a general vaccine system against all flu-type viruses, and we have no where near the capability to do that now.

    8. Re:Birds or Humans ? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      But they were not Americans so they don't count.

    9. Re:Birds or Humans ? by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      From a Wikipedia article on the subject (and I won't go into any debate on credibility of that here):

      So far as we know the most common result of this is an illness so minor as to be not worth noticing (and thus little studied). But with the domestication of chickens and turkeys, we have created species subtypes (domesticated poultry) that can catch an avian flu virus adapted to waterfowl and have it rapidly mutate into a form that kills in days over 90% of an entire flock and spread to other flocks and kill 90% of them and can only be stopped by killing every domestic bird in the area.

    10. Re:Birds or Humans ? by fletchermemorial · · Score: 1
      A list of things i've learned since posting my comment:
      • Bird flu is serious for birds
      • Bird flu is not that serious for some birds
      • Bird flu is serious for humans
      • Bird flu doesn't actually kill humans, it's humans that kill themselves with their own immune system
      • Bird flu doesn't affect humans that seriously


      But the most amazing revelation of all
      • Nobody really knows that much about the avian flu, least of all people me.

      All i can tell you for sure is that I don't have it, I don't know anyone that has it, I don't know anyone that knows anyone that has it (or has had it at all for that matter). So like a ostritch, since i don't see it, it obviously can't see me! :-P
    11. Re:Birds or Humans ? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1
      But if...a dog, somehow someway contracted a common cold, and was completely unprepared to accept the virus and combat it, the dog would die without much of a fight.
      There is no evidence for that. Quite the contrary. A pathogen needs to be sufficiently well adapted to its host to cause any real symptoms. For instance a virus that is well adapted to attack a rose or a tobacco leaf is not likely to do any damage to a human. Also, (to use a famous example) consider how deadly Ebola Reston is to monkeys and how benign it is in humans. A virus that is versatile enough to jump species is the exception, not the rule. Even in that case, your characterization is way exaggerated. A dog's immune system would in most cases be more than sufficient to fight off the common cold. Do a little studying of how the immune system works, and you will quickly see why. It is quite able to handle pathogens it has never encountered before. That is mostly the point. The immune system is well suited for precisely that.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    12. Re:Birds or Humans ? by fletchermemorial · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i clarified my exaggerations as exactly that, exaggerations. :-P get with the program! haha, i realized my error in making the umbrella statements and the likes. Thanks! -Avi

    13. Re:Birds or Humans ? by kasgoku · · Score: 1

      As far as i know there has not been a single case of bird flu in humans in india. However, mass chaos resulted when bird flu hit the poultry industry. This research might've resulted from that. So, i am not sure if they have tested it on humans... since there haven't been any cases.

      US needs to intensify the outsourcing of the MEDICAL INDUSTRY AS WELL!!!

    14. Re:Birds or Humans ? by SashaMan · · Score: 1

      How the hell did the parent get modded informative?

      First, the vaccine IS for birds, not for humans.
      Second, while the poster is somewhat correct about needing to cross species boundaries to be lethal, it doesn't need to go all the way from birds to humans. While it's usually not serious for wild birds, some strains can be absolutely lethal for domesticated birds (see the CDC website on avian flu) - some chicken farms have been totally wiped out in Asia. Same thing is true for SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus). SIV is harmless to African Green Monkeys but lethal to Rhesus Macaques (see Wikipedia article on SIV).

    15. Re:Birds or Humans ? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      So far as we know the most common result of this is an illness so minor as to be not worth noticing (and thus little studied). But with the domestication of chickens and turkeys, we have created species subtypes (domesticated poultry) that can catch an avian flu virus adapted to waterfowl and have it rapidly mutate into a form that kills in days over 90% of an entire flock and spread to other flocks and kill 90% of them and can only be stopped by killing every domestic bird in the area.

      Why not just let 90% of all the birds die and breed the 10% that don't?

  4. One less thing to worry about; True by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now they just have to worry about patents and the costs of the vaccine and deployment. After all, now that there is a vaccine, any capitalist-minded people would think, "Hey! Let their chickens die out! We'll have a monopoly on chickens!"

    Are we to believe that they'll just give it out to the world?

    1. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      India is trying really hard to catch up to the US but I don't think they are that jaded and incompasonate yet. (kidding :))

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    2. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by myth24601 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Are we to believe that they'll just give it out to the world?"

      The Indians are usually quite willing to give away something that would help the animals because it would put them in better standing with their spirit guides. I wonder which tribe developed this? Was it Cherokee or Apache? I bet it was the Shawnee.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    3. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does India really give a rat's ass about American patents?

      Are we to believe that they'll just give it out to the world?

      No, they will sell it to the world. If some silly American patent is violated, well too bad for the Americans. If the bird flu ever hits the US, will the Americans deal with it efficiently or will they get caught up in who owns that patent (read: who gets a cut of the profits)?

    4. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      You wrote:
      > Does India really give a rat's ass about American patents?
      > o, they will sell it to the world. If some silly American patent is violated, well too bad for the Americans.

      This is incorrect. Indian Patent Law is in conformance with the WTO.

      However, a lot of people think this isn't a good thing.

    5. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by erroneus · · Score: 1

      If the way things are presently any indication of the way people are at present, then I would say yes. The people who hold patents would be much more concerned over their profits and IP rights over the lives of people and chickens. Yes, I really and truly believe that. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, AIDS treatments for this and other countries. People die on a regular basis because they cannot afford to live.

    6. Re:One less thing to worry about; True by Surt · · Score: 1

      You know the old saying, it's funny because it's true: American Indians can't do science, and India Indians are amoral atheists.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  5. Did you even read the article? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already a vaccine for H5N1; all this article is saying is that now an Indian lab has produced one as well, so they don't have to import it.

    Great editing, as usual.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Did you even read the article? by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i wonder if this is an announcemnet of a generic copy. Indians usually leave the Rnd to other companies then use that research to make generic copies of drugs. That way they do not need to invest money in developing the drug, just copying it. This allows them to charge much less for the drug and still make money because there were almost no costs in developing it. Sucks for the company that did the Rnd though.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    2. Re:Did you even read the article? by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the article:

      Rai informed the meeting that a comprehensive draft report had been submitted to an ICAR committee to develop guidelines for intellectual property management and commercialisation of technologies in the national agricultural system under the ICAR.

      Your comment reminds me of the large US hi-tech companies accusing the Chinese of "stealing their IP" and then getting caught with their pants down when it turns out they were not delivering the "IP" they promised in their contracts.

      The "all the Chinese, Indians and other Asians can do is copy our great Western inventions" story is getting old very quickly, and more untrue every day. It would surprise me if they don't soon overtake the Western companies concerning the amount of awarded patents and things like that.

      --
      Donate free food here
    3. Re:Did you even read the article? by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      No, actually at the moment there is no vacine for the H5N1 virus. They used in some cases Tamiflu but later testing showed it's useless.

    4. Re:Did you even read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sucks for the company that did the Rnd though.

      But then everyone can just copy shared research. After all, it is called RE-search, right? That means it was already found once, probably on Google. We just have to find it again with a better search. And maybe not lose it again. That would be better, right?

      And maybe with things like "sampling" we can even combine the results of these searches to come up with something even better. That would eliminate all need for re-searching for lost stuff.

    5. Re:Did you even read the article? by Jugalator · · Score: 1
      They used in some cases Tamiflu but later testing showed it's useless.

      ... due to resistant strains in H5N1 that were discovered.

      Which makes me wonder what's saying it won't happen again with this vaccine.

      Let's hope it won't though...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Did you even read the article? by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      From what I have read it has never been usefull against avian flu.

      On a side note, living in a affected country(Romania, lots of avian cases) this whole thing seems a little over-blown.

    7. Re:Did you even read the article? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      You should take a look at IBM's "globally integrated enterprise" ideas.

      Big Blue's chairman and chief executive writes in today's Financial Times that traditional multinational companies need to abandon their almost colonial approach to operations outside their home country. He cites as examples of this old-style method the way GM, Ford and his own company built factories in Europe and Asia but kept all the research and development in the US.

      Instead, he argues they need to move towards full global integration of their operations...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:Did you even read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess that puts to rest the meme that "if there were no patents, we wouldn't have any cures", eh?

    9. Re:Did you even read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Motors and Ford have more R&D facilities in Europe than they have in the US. That's probably the reason they keep selling fuel-thirsty downsized 1950's trucks in the US while in Europe they can more or less compete with other car manufacturers.

    10. Re:Did you even read the article? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The "all the Chinese, Indians and other Asians can do is copy our great Western inventions" story is getting old very quickly, and more untrue every day.

      That's not what I got out of the comment. What I read was that they do copy "our great western" innovations. And, it's true. In exchange, we patent their folk remedies. Isn't global trade wonderful?

      China is especially guilty of this. They have never had any regard for anyone's IP (good or ill.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Did you even read the article? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "On a side note, living in a affected country(Romania, lots of avian cases) this whole thing seems a little over-blown."

      It only seems that way because it has yet to mutate into a human-to-human form. There is nothing over-blown about the threat. If you were expecting the threat to happen now, well, sorry? It is still a threat, whether you're bored with it or not.

    12. Re:Did you even read the article? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      China is especially guilty of this. They have never had any regard for anyone's IP (good or ill.)

      Neither do Western companies in general, except if it's their own or if it belongs to someone who's somehow dangerous to them. There is little or no "inherent respect for IP" anywhere, since in the end most of IPR law (in particular patents) is plain and simple trade policy.

      --
      Donate free food here
    13. Re:Did you even read the article? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, IBM sees things quite a bit more clearly than Mr. "Darkman, Walkin Dude" two posts below yours. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Donate free food here
  6. Also, India != Indonesia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the fact India has this does nothing to directly help Indonesia.

    1. Re:Also, India != Indonesia by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, but I would have to assume given the fact that this is for innoculating birds that India would share in the intrest of not seeing a human for of the virus develope in another country and spread to India's population or at the very least damage the global economy that India depends on right now.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
  7. But it sounds as if it's no big deal :( by CurtMonash · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is described as an indigineous replacement for something they can already import. It sounds as if it's just for birds.

    And you hardly can inoculate all the poultry in a country. So the significance of this seems pretty limited.

    Dang. I had my hopes way up from reading the headline.

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
    1. Re:But it sounds as if it's no big deal :( by betterthanducttape · · Score: 1
      And you hardly can inoculate all the poultry in a country.

      This statement leads me to conclude you do not live in a rural area with lots of farms. The amount of vaccines required by law for cows that are only used for milk is staggering. Livestock and poultry are actually fairly easily to inoculate an entire population of, as they are in confined fields or chicken houses and coops. At least here in the USA, the vaccines aren't that expensive either, thanks to government subsidy and grants, so the inoculation process is widely observed. So yes, vaccination can occur on a country-wide scale with very little difficulty if farming has any regulation at all (and I suspect bird flu to be a real economic regulator).
  8. It's ambiguous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... from a quick read of the article whether they developed or copied a vaccine that they were importing. Too many comments re: IP, importing a vaccine, etc. If it's a clone job, we'll have another example of the, uhh, benefit of using others to develop stuff you want to have value.

  9. Over-stating the case by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's not jump the gun here. The big threat to humans is a mutated strain of something like H5N1 that does the damage of the original bird flu but spreads through humans as fast as a human flu. Developing a vaccine for this threat requires knowing what the threat is, and as yet, there have been no confirmed cases of human-human transmission.

    Even with recent advances, developing and mass-producing vaccines takes several weeks, by which time the vaccine will be irrelevant for many people if the mutated strain starts to spread. This is the nightmare scenario, and is why so much research is currently being done into improving vaccine development, and so much planning focusses on identifying human-human transmission as early as possible.

    Of course anything to reduce the spread of the original bird flu also reduces the opportunity for a mutated strain to develop, and is therefore a good thing. But let's not misunderstand what's been achieved here.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Over-stating the case by spiritraveller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course anything to reduce the spread of the original bird flu also reduces the opportunity for a mutated strain to develop, and is therefore a good thing. But let's not misunderstand what's been achieved here.

      But that is exactly what makes it important. India having it's own vaccine means that she can do a much better job of innoculating her own chickens, which dramatically reduces the likelihood that a mutated human-to-human-contagious form of the disease would come from India.

      Being that India is the 2nd most populated country in the world, I'd say that this is very significant.

    2. Re:Over-stating the case by neatfoote · · Score: 1

      I understand that, should the flu develop a mutated strain capable of human-human transmission, there's no guarantee that this vaccine will be effective against the new virus. But there's no guarantee to the contrary, either, is there? My understanding was that many vaccines can have some cross-applicability to viruses of slightly different strains (ex. cowpox/smallpox); a mutation that changed the virus's transmission capabilities might or might not alter the particular proteins that are recognized as antigens by the body. If it didn't alter them substantially, the old vaccine should work against killer strains too, I'd think.

    3. Re:Over-stating the case by _iris · · Score: 1

      The problem with the popular prognosis (which you are expressing here) is that the popular view of how quickly influenza spreads in humans is extremely skewed. Our view is almost entirely shaped by the evidence provided by the 1918 pandemic. Left out of the popular description of the 1918 pandmic is the putrid conditions of World War I victims living in close quarters, in warm weather, with multiple open wounds. Influenza was more of the lucky disease that found ripe pasteurs than a blood-thirsy, human-killing super-virus. H5N1 has similar pasteurs in the over-crowded, under-tended chicken coups in southeast asia.

    4. Re:Over-stating the case by dannyboyumd · · Score: 1
      Developing a vaccine for this threat requires knowing what the threat is, and as yet, there have been no confirmed cases of human-human transmission.
      Actually, there is a documented case of human-human transmission: Bird Flu Passed From Son to Father, W.H.O. Says Latest NY Times article...June 23, 2006 An Indonesian man who died of H5N1 bird flu caught it from his 10-year-old son, the first laboratory-confirmed case of human-to-human transmission of the disease, according to a World Health Organization investigation of an unusual family cluster of bird-flu cases. The investigators also found that the virus mutated slightly when the son had the disease, although not in any way that would allow it to pass more readily among people. Flu viruses like H5N1 mutate constantly, although most of the mutations are insignificant biologically; that appears to be have been the case in the Indonesian cluster.
  10. You do realize by quo_vadis · · Score: 2, Informative

    that this vaccine is for birds and not humans. The vaccine will prevent avian to human transmission, but will be useless if H5N1, the avian flu virus mutates into human infective form.

    --
    Legally obligatory sig : My opinions are my own... etc etc
    1. Re:You do realize by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      Well H5N1 is a mutated form of the avian flu virus that can infect humans, so to late....

  11. this is what no ip does... by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

    without strict enforcement of IP vaccine development is possible...
    with strict enforcement of IP vaccine development is not possible...

    but then again, this is slashdot and i am preeching to the converted...

    thank goodness for the bill and melida gates foundation.

    --
    Does it go on forever?
    1. Re:this is what no ip does... by ShadowFlyP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know which choir you think you're preaching to, but it is not the majority of the Slashdot crowd.

      Many of us may not agree with the current implementation of some IP protections (software patents especially), but I think there are very few of us that would be for the abolishment of IP enforcement. If you truely think about it, it is only with IP enforcment that software licenses such as the GPL can work. Without IP rights, anyone would be able to take all of the GPL licensed code and integrate it into closed source applications without any contribution back to the community. Only through IP enforcement can we prevent the "embrace and extend" philosopy that leads to proprietarity.

  12. This unlikely to be effective by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

    It's most likely going to prove impossible to inocculate the entire wild bird populations in the areas which are affected by Bird Flu. Further more, one of the main problems with flu strain viruses is their speed of mutation: every year the flu vaccine is different as the strains have adapted. It's a good start, but it doesn't guarantee the flu won't just hide in wild bird populations and re-emerge an even more agressive strain...

  13. Vaccine... by Kranfer · · Score: 1

    Well while I am happy to see a Vaccine being announced... However I am hoping that one will be developed for my parrots. I love my birdies, and do not wish for them to get the bird flu.

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
    1. Re:Vaccine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sure is a problem. In big emergencies pets always seem to be left out. I have no idea if it would be effective or not, but in a last ditch try to save your pets action, google for colloidal silver, see how to make it yourself (it's easy really), or just buy some pre-made. The other thing you can do is inside your house air filtration. They make some pretty good quality filters now, that have ultraviolet light incorporated into the particle filtration, what doesn't get filtered gets sterilised as it comes inside. Expensive, but might be worth it for both you and the parrots.

  14. Glass half empty and full by Hao+Wu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Developing a vaccine was never the problem, rather making it FAST enough in sufficient quantities in the event of a pandemic. There is no guessing the genetic sequence of the virus before then, and basically a year of production is required after when ever it appears. Not before.

    Whatever vaccine they made today is not going to be greatly effective when a bird flu mutates and becomes transmittable from person-to-person.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:Glass half empty and full by _iris · · Score: 1

      So there is "no guessing the genetic sequence of the virus before [a pandemic]" yet you know that current vaccines are "not going to be greatly effective"?.

    2. Re:Glass half empty and full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may also be an avian vaccine rather than a human vaccine...

  15. "One less thing to worry about"? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    Was the 42nd victim a troublemaker?

    1. Re:"One less thing to worry about"? by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      No...the 42nd victim "was" The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Too bad about that though.

  16. mass poultry innoculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several ways to innoculate birds, one of them is by using aerosols inside the chicken containment house. You can do a large number quickly that way. I don't know if this new med can be used that way, but some can.

  17. Fewer, not less by the_tsi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That should be "one fewer thing to worry about", unless "things" have ceased being discrete overnight.

    1. Re:Fewer, not less by z0idberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      didn't you get that memo?

  18. It doesn't have to be by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    If the vacceine is effective againstt he current popular strain in avians, and they can make it rapidly (easier to do with chickens since they need smaller doses than humans, they can innoculate all the chickens in the country. Having the virus nealy eliminated in the bird population greatly mitigates the risk of having it mutate into the human strain of the virus.

  19. Oh man!!! by rowama · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just finished my underground shelter yesterday. It had food, cable internet, food, cable and sat TV, food, PS2, food, games, food, a bed, food, etc. I ordered a special computer. What shall I do with all these preps...

    I guess I could just seclude myself, eat, sit at the computer, play games, watch TV. Actually, nothing has changed.

  20. The point insn't to vaccinate wild birds by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    you vaccinate the non-wild birds (domesticated somehow doesn't fit), because these are the birds that humans are most likely to come in contact with. This reduces the chances of people catching the current virus from infected birds (regular, close contact with an infected bird seems to be a factor in bird/human transmission. In addition, once these birds are vaccinated, you've hopefully created a significant reduction in the bird/human interface where mutation to a more transmissible form is likely to occur.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:The point insn't to vaccinate wild birds by Anemophilous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Not domesticated, the term you are looking for is Commercial Livestock. That is essentially what they want to protect from infected wild birds which are typically what is moving the virus around the globe right now.

  21. where are the vaccines for AIDS or herpes? by chrisinsocalif · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They sure came up with a vaccine of the bird flu fast. I am still waiting for the vaccine for herpes....cause this itching is starting to get annoying. Damn herpes! Its been out longer and still nothing for it. What a buncha cr@p. The drug companies make too much money on suppresive medication, thankfully a country outside of the USA developed a vaccine. In the USA they would find a way for you to buy a pill or few pills at 30 dollars a pop, so they will make a profit.

  22. one of many to come by drDugan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is one of the many successes the Indians and Chineese will have showing up the West (US/Europe) in science and technology. I think over the next 10-20 years, it will become more frequent that we see breakthroughs from these areas.

  23. Re:Vaccine ... for your parrots ... by gunpowder · · Score: 1

    ... are they Norwegian Blue?

  24. How Effective is It? by giafly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until we know how well it works - and I can't find any information linked to today's news - it's too soon to say "one less thing to worry about."

    BTW: Didn't Hungarian Scientists do this in 2005? "Hungary's health minister says a bird flu vaccine appears to be effective in early tests. The vaccine works against H5N1 Hungary's health minister says a bird flu vaccine appears to be effective in early tests. The trial jab appears to protect humans and animals against the lethal H5N1 virus, preliminary results show." - BBC 19 October 2005

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  25. In Relelated News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    US Pharmas have developed a suite of drugs to control the symptoms of the flu. They immediately opened talks with both Congress and the administration to pressure India to prevent deployment of their vaccine. "Implementation of the Indian solution would not be in the best interests of the US or the world," said a Pharma spokesperson.

    Is there a +5 Cynical?

  26. Can't we all just get along? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this tainting of every scientific or technical event with ideological or political claptrap is tiresome.

    1. Re:Can't we all just get along? by drDugan · · Score: 1

      While I would love a world where everyone got along - I have come around to the fact that many people really are not bothered much by conflict, and many of them want to win at all costs. That is part of some people's nature.

  27. Great! Let's get our VIPs protected then! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    I would love to see the really important people get this kind of protection first
    and along with it why don't we give them the same vaccination regimen that has
    worked so well for our troops deployed to the gulf.

  28. Hardly a solution, and better sources for flu news by sampas · · Score: 1

    There is no way the U.S. health system can handle a pandemic, and distributing vaccine to a large portion of the population is years away. Most hospital emergecy rooms can barely cope with a busy Saturday night.

    If you want to track the march of the Avian flu on Google Earth, or just don't want your bird-flu news dumbed down to the level that journalists can understand, Declan Butler, a reporter for Nature magazine, has an excellent blog on the subject.

  29. Re:Hardly a solution, and better sources for flu n by TheShadowzero · · Score: 1

    Amen to that, brother. A year or so ago during the big flu vaccine shortage, it was impossible to get a vaccine anywhere in my area for about a month or so. Even now, flu shots are scarce during flu season.

    --
    If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
  30. There is no vaccine for H5N1 until now by gluecode · · Score: 1

    There is no vaccine for H5N1 until now. The post is correct. This is not a generic version of an existing vaccine. BTW, you cannot have a generic released into the market until the patent of the original expires. That takes 20 years. Also there is nothing wrong with someone making generics. Without generics, the poor countries have no way of buying medicines.

  31. Offiicial Press Release Link by jgercken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Official Press Release at: http://www.icar.org.in/pr/16072006.htm

    --
    Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
  32. No, it is for birds... by denjin · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article above is missing the specifics, so try this one:
    http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?se ctid=4&articleid=7162006205183757162006204743859

    "The vaccine will be injected into birds to prevent them from getting infected, he said.
    A government statement said it was a homologous vaccine derived from the H5N1 strain."

    The point of it is to stop it in birds, so it can't get on to humans I imagine.

    1. Re:No, it is for birds... by fletchermemorial · · Score: 1

      Ah, very good! Thanks for clearing up the misconception! I suppose technically, it's for humans, because as the imperial human race, we couldn't care less about chickens, we'll move on to like other meats. It just gets put into the chickens, so that we don't have to deal with medical bills, it turns out vets are cheaper to employ than medical doctors :-P

      Gotta love the selfishness, and thanks again for the clarification

    2. Re:No, it is for birds... by grandgator · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's the second comment you made in this discussion that is way, way off base. Sticking just to this one, though...

      The reason you vaccinate the birds IS to save us. Yes, it sucks if 90% of some enormous chicken flock in a third world country dies, and thus lots of people have no food. But it sucks way worse if either 1)The virus spreads to tons and tons of third world countries and ALL the chickens die 2)The virus mutates and jumps to us, and we spread it to each other.

      Vaccinating the birds means you break the chain of spread. Just like building a fire break around a roaring wildfire.

  33. I know the answer is allegedly "humans" ... by jabberwock · · Score: 1
    ... but I wanted to add, cynically perhaps:

    If it's for humans, it will be enormously expensive, and none of the people who actually need it will be able to afford it. Meanwhile, the maker of the vaccine will try to get the U.S. government to buy 300 million doses at retail price.

    If it's for animals, it'll be cheap enough to lace the entire food chain with it, and we'll only find out it has horrific side effects five years from now. ;-)

  34. vaccinces irrelevant to good health by nido · · Score: 1
    And you hardly can inoculate all the poultry in a country. So the significance of this seems pretty limited.

    Especially so, considering that the largest outbreaks of bird flu have been in countries with the most environmental polution (legacy agent orange contamination in Vietnam + chickens == weakened immune system especially susceptible to influenza).

    See Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's FOWL! Bird Flu: It's Not What You Think

    or this interview.

    "FOWL!" is an investigative report into how dioxins, POPs and other environment chemicals are contributing to illness in migratory birds, chickens and humans by making them more susceptible to the effects of influenza viruses.

    The avian flu scare is just the latest act in an ongoing world government drama. This book is a disclosure about betrayals on many levels. Here are a few of the truths that will be exposed: -Who wants the rural chickens dead? Who benefits from the destruction of the family farm, here and abroad? -What are the real reasons that domestic chickens and ducks are sick? -What is the connection between toxic environmental conditions and the death ofmigratory birds? -Why are human deaths associated with bird flu concentrated in Southeast Asia? -Who benefits from the manufacture of a 'pandemic vaccine'? What's in it? -Why vaccines are not the answer.
    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  35. Obligatory reference... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 0
    William Robinson writes...

    DANGER!

  36. One thing about Pharmaceutical Industry by Coleon · · Score: 1

    We could talk pages and pages about pharmaceutical industry, and i think no matter where you are, you need money to continue researching and of course a LITTLE incentive. But i need to mention one particular case. Two years ago, i read an article about the HPV (Human Papiloma Virus) and the vaccine against Cervix Cancer. It said the vaccine was already aproved and tested, but the farmaceutic industry didnt wanted to release ir because the treatment for cervix cancer was way higher than the vaccine. So it wasnt business. TWO YEARS and i dont know how many women dead after, they have just announced that a vaccine has been found. So we can see that farmaceutics dont exist with the motivation of saving people... or at least is not the primary.

    1. Re:One thing about Pharmaceutical Industry by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I didn't know about that. It's par for the course I have heard. Do you have any links or anything to substanciate the assertion? Cases such as these could be the basis for a suit in the U.S. Supreme Court suing not just for their patents on this vaccine to be revoked, but for other damages as well. Further, I would like to see some sort of law written regarding such practices preventing such tragedy from ever happening. Either they patent it and make it available, or they don't patent it. They shouldn't be able to suppress life-saving technology to further their profits.

    2. Re:One thing about Pharmaceutical Industry by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't be able to suppress life-saving technology to further their profits.

      Why not? It's the American Way! Profit ueber alles!

  37. Does the vaccine include any documentation? by CYDVicious · · Score: 1

    "Indian Scientists have succeeded in developing a vaccine against the bird flu disease..."

    But how good is the documentation on how to apply it? ~CYD

    --
    //Nothing to see here, please move along.
  38. No More Threat by Bendejo · · Score: 1

    You guys are too late! It's no longer being publicized therefore it's no longer a threat.

  39. Outsourced?? by JK23 · · Score: 0

    Hmm.. I'm thinking this research was probably outsourced to India..

  40. Awesome! by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But what ever are Fox, CNN, and the Bush administration going to use to distract us now? It's been such an integral part of their claim that the sky is falling and that we should therefore hand over all our freedoms. Does this mean double helpings of immigrant phobia? Would have to be, since if they whip up North Korea or Iran, they'd actually have to do something about it.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  41. You are wrong by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    Developing a vaccine for this threat requires knowing what the threat is, and as yet, there have been no confirmed cases of human-human transmission.

    WHO has in fact acknowledged H2H2H transmission. Details here.

  42. Your comment reminds me of the large US hi-tech companies accusing the Chinese of "stealing their IP"

    Funnily enough, the FBI seem to think so too... From the fine article:

    The FBI agent in charge, Don Przybyla has no doubt where the principal threat comes from. He says "the majority are coming from China. They are using a shot-gun approach, flooding the Silicon Valley with engineers and scientists.

    "The Chinese have found success in obtaining the technology through stealing, essentially. Once successful they'll send more people over to do the same thing."

    One software company that found itself targeted is 3DGeo. It deals with remote sensing equipment - searching for oil and gas from space. They had a contract with the Chinese national petrol company which included training opportunities in the US for six staff. The last two sent to California decided to help themselves to the company's secrets.


    Whats even funnier is that even when they steal the technology, they find themselves incapable of reverse engineering it. India and China have got a long, long way to go before they can begin to match western technology.

  43. one in oz too by timelady · · Score: 1

    theres a vaccine being trialled in australia. i know, im a volunteer guinea pig. or should that be guinea fowl?

    --
    Nothing - well thats something.
  44. One thing about Farmaceutical Industry by Coleon · · Score: 1

    We could talk pages and pages about pharmaceutical industry, and i think no matter where you are, you need money to continue researching and of course a LITTLE incentive. But i need to mention one particular case. Two years ago, i read an article about the HPV (Human Papiloma Virus) and the vaccine against Cervix Cancer. It said the vaccine was already aproved and tested, but the farmaceutic industry didnt wanted to release ir because the treatment for cervix cancer was way higher than the vaccine. So it wasnt business. TWO YEARS and i dont know how many women dead after, they have just announced that a vaccine has been found. So we can see that farmaceutics dont exist with the motivation of saving people... or at least is not the primary.

  45. Now the news media can shut up by VGfort · · Score: 1

    and start trying to instill fear in us with something new

  46. Good cop and bad cop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to SARS? You know, that 'deadly' disease that only killed about one ten thousandth of the number of people who died in the same period from normal pneumonia and influenza? SARS WAS normal pneumonia and influenza, that's what happened to it. Some dipstick designed a building with the drains going down the INSIDE of the kitchens - what a lovely thought. So the human excrement passed through the pipe, and several parts of the pipe weren't sealed properly. So a large number of people in that building caught pneumonia from somebody above them, and the geniuses that you call scientists made up a new name for an old disease, the idiots in the media hyped it up and tried to scare us all with it, and the scum in power managed to successfully close down half of Canada, and enable new powers so they could 'quarantine' anybody or any area they bloody well wanted to. And of course, if you happened to be on their 'hit list', they could both 'quarantine' you and then kill you, and say you died of 'SARS'.

    The same is exactly true of 'bird flu'. It's a crock of shit. There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody, anywhere, is dying from a 'new' virus, caught from birds. In the places where people have allegedly died from 'bird flu', hundreds of thousands of people DAILY handle birds and slaughter them. A tiny number just happen to get the 'flu and die from it, which has been happening since time immemorial. And then the 'scientists' (i.e. big pharma) re-label it 'bird flu' and try to threaten the entire world with this bullshit, helped, of course, by Donald Rumsfeld, who made a few million with his useless drug 'Tamiflu'.

    Why didn't somebody just tell everybody to stop eating birds? Is that too easy?

    I'm surprised that nobody here is actually questioning this bullshit.

    Do you know how the so-called 'vaccines' are made? Are they making them in fertilised EGGS, in this case, as usual? How ironic? (And pure evil). Did you ever think through what happens to the unborn chicks who are infected with the flu virus, and then minced up alive so they can inject this shit into you?

    Try reading Dr Hadwen's talks about what a fraud Jenner was. Vaccination is a fraud, on a grand scale, like most modern medicine.

    Wake up Slashdotters.