Slashdot Mirror


Paper On Super Flu Strain May Be Banned From Publication

Pierre Bezukhov writes with this excerpt from an article at Doctor Tipster: "A Dutch researcher has created a virus with the potential to kill half of the planet's population. Now, researchers and experts in bioterrorism debate whether it is a good idea to publish the virus creation 'recipe'. However, several voices argue that such research should have not happened in the first place. The virus is a strain of avian influenza H5N1 genetically modified to be extremely contagious ... created by researcher Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands. The work was first presented at a conference dedicated to influenza that took place in September in Malta."

754 comments

  1. Peh. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone has probably already crafted a similar version in a distant private or military research lab anyway. Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

    1. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it got out the 'fix' may be natural selection.

    2. Re:Peh. by Aerorae · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. This merely shows the rest of us that not only CAN it be done, but that it HAS been done and certainly CAN be done in the future!

      Hiding the information just gives those who want to keep it all for themselves more time to do awful things.

    3. Re:Peh. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      Surely they have. Governments are usually far ahead of the curve when it's devising ways to kill people, if only then.

      It's (going to be) like The Stand.

    4. Re:Peh. by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wonder what effect this will have on the Doomsday Clock?

    5. Re:Peh. by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So just because some (likely stable) government has it, we should give it to all comers? That's absolutely insane. Distrust the US government all you want, but they are far less likely to release a superflu into the wild than some random nutjob with a biology degree and an axe to grind.

    6. Re:Peh. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, obfuscation is not security.

      Wait...did I post this in the right topic??

    7. Re:Peh. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh noes, some big scary over-hyped disease like swine or bird flu that kills like 5 people but drives the point home that we really, really need our government and medical providers to subsidize big pharma and stockpile(and, scarily, mandate) vaccines, all for the children.

      Or perhaps you all should put down the Lysol and hand-sanitizer and let your kids out of the plastic bubbles to play in the fucking mud every once in awhile. That's how they get an immune system. I haven't been vaccinated in 10 years. In that time span, I never got sick from anything other than a hangover.

    8. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you can be thankful for the herd immunity that your more sensible peers are providing.

    9. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Three words: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

    10. Re:Peh. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      on an off topic: wtf has the doomsday clock got to do with climate change? did they just have to jump on the global warming band wagon? they're bloody atomic scientists, not hippies. Same goes for biosecurity

    11. Re:Peh. by haruchai · · Score: 4, Funny

      If some government has already created this ultimate killer bug then further research would just be superfluous.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    12. Re:Peh. by SlippyToad · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      wtf has the doomsday clock got to do with climate change?

      Because all intelligent adults recognize it as a threat to the continued existence of our civilization, that's why. Since it is in fact already happening and already damaging large sections of our ecosphere, and may run away at some point if unchecked and re-map our entire climate.

      But, hey just keep listening to that fat retard Rush Limbaugh and hoping it will go away.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    13. Re:Peh. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and since we're off topic, isn't it a little crazy that we're closer now to "midnight" than in the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Kennedy himself thought that nuclear war is more likely than not to happen? I think that's silly. This planet has some resource problems, and climate change is real, but these are not existential threats, which is what the clock is supposed to measure. I think we've forgotten what it's like to live with the live possibility of being nuked into civilizational collapse.

    14. Re:Peh. by mattb112885 · · Score: 1

      Who says they have to have previously developed it? They can just coerce the scientists into giving them ther data...

    15. Re:Peh. by spyder-implee · · Score: 5, Funny

      You do realise that half the world could die from a virus like this without anybody from America ever being infected, right?

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    16. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      disease like swine or bird flu that kills like 5 people

      You might want to read some history. 1918 flu pandemic:

      "Between 50 and 100 million died, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[4][5][6][7][8] Even using the lower estimate of 50 million people, 3% of the world's population (which was 1.86 billion at the time[9]) died of the disease. Some 500 million, or 27% (1/4), were infected."

    17. Re:Peh. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Idiot's luck.

    18. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No - he has a strong immune system. Do you really believe that in 10 years, he hasn't been exposed to wild strains of measles, mumps, etc? Just because you don't come down with measles (for example), doesn't mean that those viruses/bacteria aren't present in your environment. You might be immune from vaccination, you're almost certainly immune if you've had the disease, you might be lucky enough to be naturally resistant, or you might have a very strong immune system. Funny thing about about vaccination/immunity - if you accept that measles, whooping cough, etc are present in the environment, but you never catch the disease, how do you *prove* the mechanism that prevented you succumbing?

    19. Re:Peh. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly you have complete faith in your immune system. We should have you exposed to this genetically altered, fantastically deadly virus so that you can demonstrate to the world how insignificant it is.

    20. Re:Peh. by guises · · Score: 2

      Calling a government "stable" when they're creating an uncontrollably deadly super flu is a bit of a stretch. I don't think that any genuinely stable government would do this.

    21. Re:Peh. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I agree that it shouldn't be released to any and all, but you've got it a bit wrong. This was developed in the Netherlands, not the US. The US government is one of the ones that most of us don't trust with this sort of thing.

    22. Re:Peh. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Any government with religion ties could be eventually dangerous, at least for the religions that really think that will be some sort of heaven for the believers. Just kill everyone, all your points will be proved to be true, the believers will all have heaven, and the deniers hell, great deal. You could even sacrify your immortal soul to end all suffering to your loved ones and punish your enemies. And you have more than a few of those nutjobs in high enough government ranks in US.

      Anyway, money and power weights more than religion, and if there is a chance to get immensely rich and powerful with the only cure that prevents or delays what is killing mankind, that path could be taken.And there is, of course, the 12 monkeys alternative.

    23. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A modified version of the flu isn't much use to the military, for the same reasons that bio-weapons in general aren't much use: they are unreliable in war, attack an overly-broad segment of the population, and liable to spread contagion amongst friend and foe alike. They aren't much use for terrorists either: the majority of terrorism is geo-political in nature ("we want our land", "we want a different government", "stop hurting our friends" etc.). Terrorists generally want to target specific sub-populations of the human species, whether that sub-population be defined by nationality, ethnicity, wealth etc. Weapons that attack everybody equally are not really useful for that purpose. The exception here is Doomsday cults, who do exist, but represent a very small percentage of the world's population. We can only hope that they do not get the resources necessary to genetically engineer a high-lethality virus.

    24. Re:Peh. by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you can explain to me why those who are supposedly providing me "herd immunity" get visibly infected and sick on a regular basis, and I don't.
        Hint - it's not any so-called "immune response" from their vaccines.

      I'll bite, is it because you're so obnoxious that nobody and no disease wants to be around you???

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Immunisation has it's risks (and it would not carry any risk if it was snake oil). But the benefit far outweighs the risk. You may well have a good immune system. I'll also agree that an overly sanitary environment is not good for children and that some germs will help their immunity, but you have to be selective. I don't let my children play in their own vomit, faeces and urine for instance, nor our dog's. I don't let them eat their dinner straight off the floor. The bottom line is that your chances of surviving a new deadly disease depends largely upon immunisation. Entire diseases have been eliminated. I don't care that you don't like it - the truth does not bend to a person's whims.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    25. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Three more words: Apples and Oranges.

      Not to excuse the inexcusable, but to deliberately fail to treat disease with very limited communicability and long incubation period is hardly the same is releasing Captain Trips... While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.

    26. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm ... so what country in the world has used weapons of mass destruction on another in the past century ? It's a pretty short list .....

    27. Re:Peh. by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the same thing would have happened now a days. Between public awareness of viral attack vectors and our medical industry's ability to stabilize a person, I doubt we'd see anywhere near the same infection rate, nevermind mortality rate.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    28. Re:Peh. by Grave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it's true that those factors would reduce the spread and effectiveness of such an outbreak, the ease and speed of worldwide travel serve to negate that and then some.

    29. Re:Peh. by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is false. It is not like a computer patch.

      The fix may be a vaccine against one particular instantiation---and deploying vaccines to 7 billion people for a virus which doesn't exist naturally is a big and expensive problem. There's no such thing as auto-update. This is real and expensive and will take away resources from other things which could also improve people's help. Any failures mean people, like your family, will die.

      The real danger is that the techniques and insight involved could be used to make a wide variety of weaponizable viruses, in which case one might face a wave of dangerous viruses each of which is not covered by the previous's virusweapon's vaccine. These waves would sweep faster than vaccines could be isolated and produced (which for influenza is about 9 months to a year---for this you have to count proven manufacturing not some future hope of how something might work). How fast can Dr Evil produce new sequences? A bunch faster.

      If the description of the research is accurate, this is like publishing a paper on how to manufacture, and mass-produce thermonuclear weaponry with the tech available in a typical university lab, without using any expensive fissile nuclear materials or isotopic separation. What a wonderful world.

    30. Re:Peh. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I kinds agree with you, actually. Decades ago when I was a youngster, the immunizations I received probably did protect me from grevious illness. But I tell you this - Back when I was growing up, the flu was something everybody(even kids) just caught and dealt with. Yeah, it was uncomfortable and it sucked, but nobody ran to be vaccinated against it, flailing their arms like the flu was a death sentence. And to deny that ever-increasing numbers of vaccines are being unnecessarily shoved up our asses, thanks toi the lobbying power of big pharma, is naive.

      My cynical stance is not that of immunology being voodoo. It is that increased politicization through fearmongering is making a joke out of science, making way to big a deal out of what is just an uncomfortable fact of life.

    31. Re:Peh. by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      That only addresses the infection vector. Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.

      That's assuming, as well, that travel is not restricted once an epidemic is identified ( which of course it would be ). No, there is no reason to believe that the 1918 flu strain would be anywhere near as debilitating today as it was back then.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    32. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A strong immune system vs a specific virus are two different things. Having your immune system exposed to various bacteria and viruses (on non-dangerous levels) helps strengthen your system to recognize and fight it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what a vaccination is! What you are doing (exposing yourself to common bacteria and virus) and vaccination are both the SAME THING but one is controlled while the other isn't. The problem with your method is that it doesn't NOT strengthen your immune system to viruses not common or are unique. You body can not fight what it does not know. Your body can only know by actually having it, and by having it, you must hopefully live long enough for your immune system to respond (some viruses can kill you before that time). That is why vaccination was created (basically nurtured bacteria/viruses) which introduces these unique viruses/bacteria so your body can learn about it. No matter how much you naturally expose your body, there are many things your body will never be exposed to.

      Herd immunity implies prevention of SPECIFIC often rarer viruses. A vaccine for polo only prevent polo, not the common cold if you didn't realize it.

      The immune system isn't so clear cut as strong / weak. Rather then that, it's more about how much it can recognize cells as dangers. An antivirus software is a good example. A good antivirus software can prevent alot of viruses but some it will not recognize as dangers. While a poor one may not be as good, as long as it can recognize certain viruses, it can prevent those specific viruses.

      Speaking about regular sickness (generic) and comparing it against vaccination (targeted/specific) shows that you obviously know nothing.

    33. Re:Peh. by w0mprat · · Score: 2

      That's a 11% death rate. This is talking about 50% and in a modern world more than 27% would be exposed, I'd imagine. that's assuming it isn't anymore infectious. We were actually damn lucky swine flu wasn't more deadly.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    34. Re:Peh. by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes but you must also take into account the globalization of the population in general. In 1918, we didn't have a jet set crowd, and a virus was limited to physical transmission based on how far an infected person could travel. In today's environment, it could easily spread worldwide in a day into heavily populated zones that are multitudes more dense (per capita) than anything that existed in 1918. Couple that with the fact that it could easily overwhelm the medical infrastructure in high population zones if it spreads fast enough. Just assuming that advances in medical science negate a virus is a false assumption as everything else is not equal in this scenario. Transmission rates and transmission range have changed drastically since the early 1900's.

    35. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no herd immunity to this. That is the whole point. It's actually surprising that this work finally got done; I remember reading at least 5 years ago about the debate raging over whether to engineer H5N1 to be contagious like human flu. The "for" argument was basically:

      Humans infected with H5N1 have high mortality,
      H5N1 was appearing in third world countries,
      in those countries animals and humans live in close physical proximity,
      All it would take was the transfer of a few genes coding for cell surface proteins to be transferred from human flu to H5N1 and it would become highly contagious,
      This transfer was highly likely to happen if a human was infected with human flu and H5N1 at the same time,
      Which is highly likely given the conditions in third world countries
      Therefore it is highly likely that this will happen at some point in the near future,
      Therefore we should do it in the lab now and research the resulting virus before the outbreak happens.

      The "against" argument was obviously that the resulting virus could potentially wipe out our species. Interesting debate!

    36. Re:Peh. by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

      Because that possibility was just politics. Politics are a lot easier to deal with than climate change.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    37. Re:Peh. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I believe that the same thing would happen today. We pack our kids into school rooms every day, where they can exchange germs, viruses, or whatever. Those attack vectors are wide open.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    38. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for making our point smart guy!

    39. Re:Peh. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      You are a fool. It takes only a cursory glance at disease and vaccination statistics to see the efficacy of vaccination. The fact that, despite your hard-headed idiocy, you did not happen to get sick, says absolutely nothing.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    40. Re:Peh. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      We all know that in most cases, whatever seasonal flu virus goes around ends up being no worse than average (which, by the way, is about 30,000 deaths annually). What is also known, however, is that each flu virus carries a small probability that it could become a pandemic. It has happened in the past, and it will almost certainly happen again. We take the seasonal flu virus seriously because we will not know it is going to go pandemic until, you know, it actually does. At this point, it is far harder to get it under control. Ubiquitous flu vaccination is the best tool that we have right now to defend against it, and we need everyone that can get vaccinated to do so to protect those that are not able to. So, in short, fuck you. You are letting your ignorance put others in harm's way.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    41. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 2

      Also, this is not the first research to create genetically engineered flu with higher virulence, see wired Virulent Bird-Human Flu Hybrid Made in Lab

    42. Re:Peh. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Rush Limbaugh and hoping it will go away.

      Limbaugh listeners aren't hoping it will go away, they are certain that it is all a lie, a liberal plot to get grant money to study the problem and other such nonsense. There's no need to hope for the tooth fairy to go away, is there?

    43. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

      It was more than "failing to treat a disease": the study administrators lied and prevented test subjects - aka "United States Citizens", or, more generically, "humans" - from getting treatment in the hopes that the test subjects would die. They also allowed the disease to pass on to children, among other things.

      The point was that we could trust the US government not to do something despicable. I think Tuskegee shows otherwise.

    44. Re:Peh. by monoqlith · · Score: 5, Informative

      And before you grew up(presumably), the 1918 flu pandemic killed literally tens of millions of people. Just because none of the flew strains that were carried in your youth were especially lethal doesn't mean that flu is some sort of inherently mild illness. It can be very dangerous.

    45. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      We need not wait for an asteroid to hit us. By technological measure, and Murphy's law, our own curiosity will do us in. Well, at least most of us.

      Thankfully, I'll be spared! ( it's just how these things go; sorry, chumps!)

    46. Re:Peh. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Your post rests on the fallacy that a government is a coherent entity, rather than a set of competing factions with various goals, and a handful of nutjobs for good measure. Unless you meant to imply that there is no such thing as a genuinely stable government.

    47. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Learn to spell you fuckwit. Seriosuly, I thought someone was having a stroke and pounding keys at random, so I started calling 911. But turns out you're just a moron.

    48. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      1. Exposure via vaccination to an attenuated or dead virus is not the same as exposure to wild variants, and in many cases does not produce full immunity - why are booster doses recommended for many vaccinations?.
       
      2. Your computer antivirus analogy is weak. Some computer viruses are "defeated" by having their signature recognised by the software (IOW, vaccination), and some are defeated by heuristic methods (more like a strong immune system).
       
      How many times is it necessary to say this before it gets through - you are exposed to wild disease-causing viruses and bacteria ALL THE TIME. I haven't had a tetanus booster for many years, yet I'm exposed to garden dirt and all its pathogens every time I dig through the vege garden and especially when I receive puncture wounds in said garden. Why haven't I caught tetanus? Luck? I doubt it.

    49. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup, and the avian influenza and swine flu both had the potential to be just as deadly. It wasn't fear mongering by the WHO, believe it or not.

      so, what stopped it from being just as deadly? living conditions.

      we are healthier (in the fact that we all have plenty of food and receive plenty of vitamins and AA's).
      sanitation has improved.
      social interaction is much more limited.
      cheap and easy access to all sorts of drugs to control the unpleasant aspects of being sick.

      even if this superbug is released, i don't think that it would have as many deaths.

    50. Re:Peh. by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but we're not talking about an ordinary strain here. This strain has been created in order to kill as many people as possible. Saying that people should just deal with a man-made bioweapon is like saying anthrax victims are a bunch of whiners.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    51. Re:Peh. by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      There are many diseases that heuristic measures fail against such as HIV.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    52. Re:Peh. by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Terrorists generally want to target specific sub-populations of the human species, whether that sub-population be defined by nationality, ethnicity, wealth etc."

      yes, their massive car bombs are exceptionally precise.

    53. Re:Peh. by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      Was that experiment a massive release of airborne infectious disease which has a history of causing pandemics which was then further modified to be
      far more lethal and quickly transmissible?

      Oh, no it was actually rather contained.

    54. Re:Peh. by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      "I haven't been vaccinated in 10 years. In that time span, I never got sick from anything other than a hangover."

      In those 10 years, how many times have you been exposed to a weaponized aerosolised virus?

    55. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 1

      Infection rate would be likely be higher now, because we have jet planes and cars and the "remote areas" that were geographically isolated don't exist any more. (Having said that, the 1918 flu spread to the Arctic, so being remote may not have helped as much as would be imagined). As for the mortality rate, Wikipedia says,

      "The reported mortality rate of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in a human is high; WHO data indicate 60% of cases classified as H5N1 resulted in death. However, there is some evidence the actual mortality rate of avian flu could be much lower, as there may be many people with milder symptoms who do not seek treatment and are not counted.[20][21]

      The medical industry can not be prepared for H5N1 with human seasonal flu contagion rates, and the majority of the world does not have access to the emergency wards of the first world. Hospitals are just not resourced to be able to provide critical care to 20% of the population. A typical hospital covers a population of tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people, and is resourced to be able to provide critical care to one ward of tens of people. A virus with contagion rates of human seasonal flu, combined with 50% mortality, would kill hundreds of millions of people in the first year alone.

    56. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to elaborate? Apparently three words are not enough.

      Do you assert this? "Fifty years ago, a group of researchers from the USPHS unethically failed to offer proper treatment to subjects in a syphilis study when it became available; therefore we have good reason to suspect that the US government is likely to willfully unleash a genetically engineered plague capable of wiping out half the world's population."

    57. Re:Peh. by evanism · · Score: 1

      That's because this infects PEOPLE... :)

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    58. Re:Peh. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then you can explain to me why those who are supposedly providing me "herd immunity" get visibly infected and sick on a regular basis, and I don't.

      Because vaccines only work against the particular illnesses one has been vaccinated against. They don't protect against other diseased. That's why your neighbours keep on getting sick with various lesser infections. And the more serious ones never come your way, due to herd immunity (which means everyone around you is immune, so there's none that could give you the disease, which is exactly what large-scale vaccinations provide - so why the quotes?).

      Luckily, you appear to have a naturally strong immune system, so you can deal with little stuff; unfortunately, it's gone to your head and made you think you could deal with something like polio too. Luckily, there's still enough vaccinated people that you're unlikely to have to put that hubris to test; unfortunately, there's a tipping point when there's enough unvaccinated people in the population for it to start spreading amongst them even if the general population is immune.

      In the meantime, try to avoid getting scatched by any rusty items - tetanus shots only last 10 years.

      --

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

    59. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add in that since 1918, transportation has changed from a ferry taking weeks to a plane taking days. Do not expect geography to keep you safe this time around.

    60. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to point out that a lot of people may be applying the heuristic framing from computer security research to this case.

      In computer security, knowledge of a zero-day security hole is like a virus that could take out half the world's computers. Experience has shown that trying to fix this "from the shadows" often fails, so "shock therapy" must sometimes be employed, i.e. full disclosure. The response is that the world patches the security hole and the problem is fixed for most critical cases.

      In this case, you know a zero-day security hole in the human immune system. Should you disclose it? Unfortunately it's impossible to patch.

      How is the framing changed when the security hole CANNOT be patched by definition? Well, the only way is "security through obscurity", and a broad range of softer defensive measures that can be taken regardless of disclosure. Disclosure hence helps nothing at all.

    61. Re:Peh. by evanism · · Score: 1

      32000 nukes certainly disqualifies the last sentence.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    62. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My cynical stance is not that of immunology being voodoo. It is that increased politicization through fearmongering is making a joke out of science, making way to big a deal out of what is just an uncomfortable fact of life.

      Nice try. Your complete misunderstanding of science is making a joke out of you.

    63. Re:Peh. by chrb · · Score: 2

      They are precise enough to target the things that their deployers want to target. The IRA were notorious users of car bombs, over a period of decades. Did they ever car bomb a Republican stronghold? No, never. Clearly it is possible to target geographical areas, and therefore the populations that inhabit those areas, with such a device. The logical extension of your argument would be that no bomb can ever be 100% precise, therefore no bomb can ever be used to target specific sub-populations. Obviously that is incorrect. Target does not mean being 100% accurate; for a terrorist, they must only be accurate enough to be able to justify the attack to their followers.

    64. Re:Peh. by Improv · · Score: 1

      Common sense is less of a good measure for these things than science.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    65. Re:Peh. by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you don't agree with him, at all. As I see it, you're just glad that you got vaccinated as a kid because you are certain that you benefited from it directly. However, it seem that you'd hold those fancy new vaccines as suspicious. Why? Obviously you're intelligent enough to understand decades of research and improved scientific method that has lead to the current state of immunization. Certainly you couldn't be unaware of the death toll of disease was once considerable. Why would you ignore all that information? Do you consider it some sort of political stance?

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    66. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 0

      Because civilization was destroyed... right?

    67. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 1

      And *MY* point was that sometimes the US Government DOES do something despicable (we can argue about frequency if you like, but I'd say rare) -- but it wouldn't do something suicidal.
       

    68. Re:Peh. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! Groups such as Al Qaeda do have a geo-political vision. To spread Islam to all corners of the Earth and dominate with it via caliphate. We can talk about what it has done in the past and plans to do next in the future. But the end goal is still the same as it's religious in nature. If they feel to be on the losing side of things, they just might snuff out 50% of the human population to level the playing field. At the very least, gain power in a time of misery and chaos. To them, such as event may be worth capitalizing on. As for their own dead brothers and sisters? They were such good martyrs weren't they? Allah bless them. Allah akbar!!!

      Note: I'm an average American with Judeo-Christian values. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Islamic extremism.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    69. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without anybody?? Just 99%.

    70. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean one of the atrocities(along with concentration camps for japanese, and the time bomb of Social Security) committed under glorius leader?

      Yeah, it's not a highly contagious problem unless your culture fucks to say hello.

    71. Re:Peh. by spearway · · Score: 1

      Obviously this is Slashdot and every one is talking about this they don't understand.

      The reason he is not sick is because of herd immunity i.e. the rest of the population is vaccinated so there is few reservoirs of viruses. The reason people die is because of people that could be vaccinated and are not.

      For the record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity): Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.

    72. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice one

    73. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cull the weak!!

    74. Re:Peh. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Three words: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

      You're right. It's high time that the administration that was responsible for that episode was finally voted out of office. It's hard to believe that - after all these decades - they're still setting such policies, and still running those sorts of tests.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    75. Re:Peh. by evanism · · Score: 0

      Mate, the prez had his finger on the button. I'd bet it's not far from it even now.

      Don't forget to put my comment in context of the conversation above, not overly sensitive defensive americanisms.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    76. Re:Peh. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Amazingly, vaccines are the one thing big pharma can help the rest of the world out with. It's the bandaids (nasal sprays, cough syrups, headache medicine, etc) that don't do squat for us but result in recurring revenue for them.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    77. Re:Peh. by infinitelink · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of further interest, it is sometimes those with the strong immune systems that die, rather than the weak. Various conditions provoke immune response that chemically eats at important organs and tissues, e.g. the recent flu that they warned was killing more 18-25 year old men than others: that is because 18-25 y.o. men have the strongest immune systems in general terms, and I do mean in the sense of strong/weak.

      What you did not mention is the distinction of immunity types, that is, specific vs. general immunity; a body that is unable to immediately react to a new threat with a precise, targeted approach can do so through chemical warfare: unfortunately it can also burn itself within in this way; the weapons of this warfare are hydrolytic enzymes, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, and a myriad of other goodies that you would not dare drink, and having a generally strong trait for nonspecific immunity means that with 'bugs' that are really provocative, viral or otherwise, can cause your own strength to finish you off.

      The first stage of immunity usually is a clear cut strong/weak scenario, and frequently this turns out well, at least in the modern era of antibiotics to make overresponse unnecessary as the body finds a slowed, dying, or severely weakened threat, but with viruses (far less treatable), and especially novel variants (the more novel, the worse), the response can often be catastrophic. Of course that clear-cut sense of "strong/weak" is restricted to general (nonspecific) type response rather than specific response (i.e. already having antibodies to an intruder), and is the basest sense of force/hostility/violence that people use those terms, in this case with regards inundation (churning out) the goodies as opposed perhaps to a light spray; then of course the simplicity soons begins to fail when one considers the interaction between infected cells and their environment to attract the bombers, and even between them and the leukocytes directly to hand over proteins to go make antibodies...

      Of course "go make antibodies" is inaccurate if taken to imply that the cells who receive proteins from infected cells are the actual makers, actually...

      Oh whatever. Not speaking about general or nonspecific immune response vs. specific or targeted immunity, and comparing the immune system in general to antivirus software for computing 'health', shows that you obviously know nothing. : )

      p.s. I do mean it as a chide rather than really trying to be adversarial, okay?

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    78. Re:Peh. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      ooohhh, you're right, i see your point

      the tuskegee experiment proves it is ok to release this info to any random nutjob

      (!?)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    79. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sort of thing is why I've been saying for the last few years that I am far more concerned about terrorists with bioweapons than terrorists with nukes. The bioweapons are cheaper and easier to make, the raw materials easier to obtain, and the consequences of use potentially far more severe.

    80. Re:Peh. by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      but can we really say that any terrorist group (hell, any government) knows enough about science and biology not to do something like this?
      Scientists were worried that the first atomic bomb would ignite the atmsophere. They were wrong, but we still tried it out anyway.

      I think the issue isn't about targetting or precision, but more about shortseightness and general stupidity.

    81. Re:Peh. by Grogan+The+Destroyer · · Score: 1

      The real danger is that the techniques and insight involved could be used to make a wide variety of weaponizable viruses, in which case one might face a wave of dangerous viruses each of which is not covered by the previous's virusweapon's vaccine. These waves would sweep faster than vaccines could be isolated and produced (which for influenza is about 9 months to a year---for this you have to count proven manufacturing not some future hope of how something might work). How fast can Dr Evil produce new sequences? A bunch faster.

      If the description of the research is accurate, this is like publishing a paper on how to manufacture, and mass-produce thermonuclear weaponry with the tech available in a typical university lab, without using any expensive fissile nuclear materials or isotopic separation. What a wonderful world.

      I can see the parasites move from finance into pharma... create a nasty virus mutation... and then sell the vaccine... create a mutation... and sell the vaccine... way better than creating fake capital.

    82. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that "big pharma" would never produce vaccines if they had the choice, right? They make zero money on them, and the fact that they have been given immunity to lawsuits by government intervention is the only reason they will continue producing them, otherwise the risk is too high from side effects. Lobbying for the suit immunity is the only compromise they have to keep producing them.

    83. Re:Peh. by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modded Insightful? Disseminating this research simply assists anyone insane enough to create and release a similar strain into the wild. Knowledge doesn't grant biological immunity. You'll just have a better cognitive grasp of what's killing you.

    84. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      No. The point was that the US Govt could be trusted.

    85. Re:Peh. by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      This ain't /b/ motherfucker.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    86. Re:Peh. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You know why we haven't detected any aliens? why we haven't picked up broadcasts of I Love Lucy starring three headed people? Its because of this, they get to this point in their evolution and then they destroy themselves"..The Outer Limits: Final Exam

      In that episode it was a cold fusion bomb but the sentiment is the same. With technological progress comes increased danger and if one makes a leap or breakthrough in one place then as you pointed out others are already on that path, and as the technology becomes easier and cheaper and the knowledge more widely available all it takes is one nut with a cause and the right technological know how to create a recipe for a worldwide holocaust.

      Imagine just getting on a plane while carrying this superflu in say London? How far would you have it spread before you were no longer able to continue?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    87. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

      Sarcasm noted.

      The point was that the US govt. could be trusted. The fact that these experiments lasted decades, with multiple changes in executive leadership, and with the experiment leads hoping for death of the human subjects to obtain additional data points suggests otherwise.

    88. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because he's just ITCHING to push the button, right?

      Or maybe ... that button has kept the peace between the super powers. And it's not that US, USSR and China where you have to worry about a madman pushing the button, it's some non-nation setting off a few stolen (or provided) nukes...

      In the context of the conversation above,you need to rememer nukes don't make the US suicidal crazy -- and not in the context of overly sensitive and paranoid anti-americanism.

    89. Re:Peh. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      What stopped it from being just as deadly?

      No, it wasn't living conditions. For avian flu, it is because it isn't very contagious to people. For swine flu, it just wasn't any more deadly than ordinary flu (even in places where living conditions are poor.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    90. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>38198548 >>38198006 Samefag detected.

    91. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Your depravity and utter lack of concern for human life is remarkable, but not in a good way. If I were a psychologist, I'd invite you to partake in any number of studies aimed at further understanding sociopaths.

    92. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's stupid. Bioweapons don't have a radius. A terrorist can focus a nuke on a city or region or country, thus, not killing those he favours (e.g. his homeland and its vicinity). If a terrorist unleashes a super flu strain, he will (as the paper points out) affect half the planet, indiscriminately. Travel and food sources being global and unavoidably so, a terrorist will be killing half of his own homeland and fellow believers.

      No, you're still better off worrying about terrorists with nukes. Large scale or tactical, they make more sense, because you can deploy them AGAINST an enemy instead of simply deploying something like a bioweapon that has no radius of effect.

    93. Re:Peh. by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally! A disease sent from God to punish people for being Un-American.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    94. Re:Peh. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You do realise that half the world could die from a virus like this without anybody from America ever being infected, right?"

      It doesn't affect the obese? (runs)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    95. Re:Peh. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      1. Exposure to a wild variant doesn't produce full immunity to other wild variant either, why wouldn't you want to give your immune system a head start? Do you think if you are exposed to a wild virus once you are immune forever, if not then what does boosters have to do with anything?

      Of course it's luck. You do realise that before we vaccinated for tetanus not everyone in the world got it., right?

    96. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, I have no doubt that they'll justify it to themselves by letting "God" sort out the details. After all, he'll guard his flock and wipe out the heathens, right?

      *Fixed that for ya.

    97. Re:Peh. by Fjandr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.

      Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918. All current treatments are still experimental.

      There might be marginal cases where better monitoring would have resulted in fewer deaths, but the vast majority would find no better help with current medical technology.

    98. Re:Peh. by fractoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's assuming, as well, that travel is not restricted once an epidemic is identified ( which of course it would be ).

      Fucking Madagascar.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    99. Re:Peh. by izomiac · · Score: 1

      The reason we freak out about flu is because is because it's common, rapidly mutating, deadly, and difficult to treat. The seasonal flu kills 3,000 - 49,000 people in the US each year. It also mutates at such a rate that our immune system isn't that great at stopping it (hence the yearly vaccine). By its nature, it creates yearly epidemics.

      Avian flu, OTOH, has a mortality rate of 60%. Right now, it doesn't spread well between humans, so it's a minor concern. The scary part is that it could easily cross with the yearly influenza type and you could get a highly contagious strain with a high mortality rate, like the 1918 variant.

    100. Re:Peh. by jasomill · · Score: 1

      Calling a government "stable" when they're creating an uncontrollably deadly super flu is a bit of a stretch. I don't think that any genuinely stable government would do this.

      Because no stable government would want to respond rapidly and effectively against new flu viruses, saving lives? These researchers aren't hoping to obtain "superweapons." Could this research help those who are? Maybe so. But this is true of most any immunological research*. On the other hand, natural mutation of influenza viruses has in the past been a far more significant threat to human life than "weaponization," so the cost in lives lost due to overreaction to the risks of otherwise-useful research "falling into the wrong hands" could be quite significant. Hence the debate.

      "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell."

      * One need not stop there. Finite-element analysis could have been helpful in planning the 9/11 attacks. Should we similarly restrict research in applied mathematics, cluster computing, and 3D visualization?

    101. Re:Peh. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Superfluous in a purely technical sense, yes, but if anyone else has done it they're not sharing the fact with the rest of the world.

    102. Re:Peh. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If some government has already created this ultimate killer bug then further research would just be superfluous.

      Oh, you. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    103. Re:Peh. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Nukes which saved us from destruction. You think getting rid of them would have been a good idea?

    104. Re:Peh. by ThatAblaze · · Score: 1

      Or "god" depending on which terrorists we're talking about here.

    105. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, we have ventilators and tamiflu now. And a CDC.

    106. Re:Peh. by WCLPeter · · Score: 1

      It certainly would go a long way to explaining why the Mexican's are in such a rush to build their own Racoon City.

    107. Re:Peh. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      "Raw materials easier to obtain"... yeah, and after you make your first little bit of virus, the raw materials are people-guts. :(

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    108. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is sad is the general perception that this thinking has. One should ask "why" 5 times. Are nukes are defensive, or offensive. Are tools are there to be used. blah blah. Since I'm not a USA-ian, these questions may be moot, but as someone in another land, many are always thinking of how a bully might use his new baseball bat.

    109. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.

      The endless stream of advertising for the new bigger, badder Chevy Thundra All-Terrain Pickup Truck on U.S. television begs to differ. I'm sorry to inform you that we are so stupid that most of us don't even recognize when we're already destroying civilization.

    110. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can imagine an eco-terrorist might be happy to reduce earth's human population by a significant fraction.

    111. Re:Peh. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      And before you grew up(presumably), the 1918 flu pandemic killed literally tens of millions of people. Just because none of the flew strains that were carried in your youth were especially lethal doesn't mean that flu is some sort of inherently mild illness. It can be very dangerous.

      On top of that, it mostly killed healthy young people, precisely because their immune system was so strong. The theory i've read about this is that normally the flu works best with a reasonably long incubation period so you are as contagious as possible while you are still well enough to be out and about, because one you start feeling really sick you just stay home in bed and tend not to spread it so far. Having a war going on (or winding up) in 1918 though changed the social dynamic enough that a virus that behaved a bit differently and hit fast and hard did better...

    112. Re:Peh. by greentshirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but Muslims don't have a monopoly on Batshit Crazy, plenty of that in the Christianity and other religions too. In fact, plenty of that in secular circles. Language is important, once we start equating words like "terrorist" with "Muslim", we're all one step stupider. If George Dubya Bush was smart enough to avoid making that jump, I have faith that you can be too.

    113. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No effect whatsoever as the Doomsday clock is an indicator of the state of the world in regards to a nuclear holocaust.

      However, this virus is still small potatoes if it will only kill 50% of the world's population. To meet the requirements of Agenda 21 the pandemic would have to be at least 97% fatal with only a few of the world's leaders and richest families pre-immunized before it "leaked" or was somehow found in the wild again. Likely the real weapon of mass correction would be a modified smallpox virus. Since that's been eradicated in the wild they don't even inoculate for smallpox any longer.

    114. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent example of the pros and cons of different system security models.

      Do you disclose early and open the information to the world, risking infection to the hosts, do you hold it in private and hope nobody notices, or do you hold it in private and fervently work on a preventative measure, hoping nobody notices before you've got the fix?

      When there are real, tangible human lives at stake - the risk factors are higher - it kind of puts things into perspective.

      I should note: I'm a proponent of open source and the open security model. Why? Because there's less tangible risk, so there's less to lose by doing so.

    115. Re:Peh. by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Do they have pets, and you don't?

    116. Re:Peh. by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Politics are a lot easier to deal with than climate change.

      Politics is what causes climate change. We could pretty easily stop burning oil in a hurry if all governments took a firm stand and decide to e.g. add $1/gallon to the gas tax every year for the next 20 years (and an equivalent for other fossil fuels). People would straight away stop wanting to buy cars that run on gasoline because they'll know in five years it'll be much more expensive to operate and an electric car won't, but it wouldn't cause all the existing infrastructure to grind to a halt because the extra cost doesn't show up in a serious way for a period of years.

      The problem is that the politics are the opposite of the nuclear scenario: Nobody wants to be the first to lob a nuke, so nobody does. But nobody wants to be the first to take the economic hit that comes with lowering carbon emissions, so nobody does.

    117. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 1

      You've read the research that says half of all people who get the cold or flu show no signs, right? It's an overreaction of the immune system that you see when people are sick. You get sick but your immune system doesn't overreact.

      Be glad you aren't getting sick with measles thanks to the rest of us. Your wimpy immune reaction likely means it would kill you.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    118. Re:Peh. by tigersha · · Score: 1

      The Soviets did the same with Smallpox, Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever, Anthrax and Tularemia. And then Weaponized this
      and stuffed it into ICBMs. En-Masse. The baddies already know how to do this, industrialize the process and weaponize it.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    119. Re:Peh. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Trust is a matter of degrees. The Tuskegee incident is so horrendous because its such a blatant defilement of trust. Its also historical and one of millions of programs. As long as the govt has a mechanism for accountability, the us gov't is far more trustworthy than almost any other entity you can think of

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    120. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 1

      There are lots of illnesses that trigger wasting and cause death in those who aren't fat enough before they got sick. Americans could well survive something that would kill most of the rest of the world's population.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    121. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Best post in the thread, but I bet 90% of the audience doesn't get it. Hopefully the 10% will be mods.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    122. Re:Peh. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Reading the article, it seems it's also fairly simple to be done. Take a random sample, transfer it between a couple of hosts a few times until it's mutated far enough that it is spread through air and resistant to the hosts' immune system.

      It also shows us that a dangerous outbreak of such virus is 'just' 5 mutations away (if we can believe the article) which may (or will) happen by naturally occurring natural selection or other forces.

      The US keeps a lot of stuff in their labs (such as smallpox) - an organized, funded and motivated attacker will be able to obtain whatever they want and will have the resources to develop it as well.

      I think the terrorist scenario is a little far fetched though. Terrorists are not planning to wipe the human population, they want to instill fear and have the opponent on their toes and destroy them from within by letting panic and paranoia drive the opponents actions (such as 9/11 did to the US). Maybe some anarchist groups may want this but probably those affected by it most are going to be the underprivileged, those with which such groups identify themselves or stand up for.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    123. Re:Peh. by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heck, the regular flu kills 20,000 Americans a year but gets almost no news attention.

    124. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's assuming, as well, that travel is not restricted once an epidemic is identified ( which of course it would be ).

      Oh yes, of course...."once an epidemic is identified." With a virulent enough strain there could be outbreaks on every major continent before an epidemic was identified, making restricting travel a moot point. E.g. As I recall, by the time the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 was classified as a pandemic the WHO ruled that since the feline had well and truly extricated itself from the proverbial bag, closing borders would be counter-productive.

    125. Re:Peh. by Baseclass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Witness the makings of the Fermi paradox in all it's glory.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    126. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's much big pharma involvement in any of the recurring revenue targets you mentioned. That's all umbrella corps like p&g.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    127. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to be immune to "polo" too. Waterpolo aswell, thanks.

    128. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're trying to spread it deliberately, don't get on a plane, hang out in the airport.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    129. Re:Peh. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The real joke is that the other superpowers never built that much nukes as the US once thought, they merely made the appearance that they had so many nukes and also had them in much better locations than the US would ever want to admit.

      In the end, the things that really saved the world from destruction were spies, double agents, informants and whistleblowers, the same people our societies would like to weed out and hang for treason in this age.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    130. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Likely stable"? "Distrust the US government..."?

      Why do you think the GP refers to a lab belonging to a stable government? I'd go so far as to say that unstable governments are far more likely to invest in chemical-biological warfare research than stable governments and take it further, with fewer safety/security precautions. That this particular research is funded/under the control of the US does not guarantee that similar research has not been carried out in Iran/China/Best Korea etc.

    131. Re:Peh. by Rennt · · Score: 1

      I don't know... the whole "nukes as a deterrent" seems pretty suicidal in the scheme of things - I just don't think we've seen it play out yet.

    132. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unreal, lol, I love how the say "Dutch" researcher. Like the U.S. government has never done anything like this, or they do not have more sinister plans for mutating viruses. The CDC would be an obvious start here in the U.S.
      We never learn as humans to leave things alone. History seems to breed more idiots, to make sure history repeats itself, or we start a new horrible chapter. LOL Unreal!!!!!

    133. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a bioweapon

    134. Re:Peh. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Uh, "such as", but not actually Al Qaeda? Have you even read Bin Laden's Fatwas? He pretty clearly outlines that he's pissed off about American imperialism and Jewish re-settlement of Israel, and the (claimed) resulting poverty and economic decline of Arab nations as a result. I get weekly emails from my stoutly republican grandfather outlining Obama's character and policies in a similar light. What you wrote reads almost exactly as what's on wikipedia.
       
      Some light reading: 1996 Fatwa
        1998 Fatwa.
       
      No where does it mention expanding Islam and making it the "dominate" religion. If you have some primary sources you'd like to present here, I'd be interested to read them, but the primary literature Al Qaeda is based on is political, with religious undertones (as is the way with many things in that region), not the other way around.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    135. Re:Peh. by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      "While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization."

      Three more, more words: Mutually Assured Destruction.

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    136. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exception here is Doomsday cults, who do exist, but represent a very small percentage of the world's population. We can only hope that they do not get the resources necessary to genetically engineer a high-lethality virus.

      This is only the beginning. Within our lifetimes every biomed student will be able (will be required?) to make viruses in the lab. That will be required because modified viruses will likely have medical uses in gene therapy.

      The question is, will there be a disgruntled biomed student, who bears a grudge at humanity?

      And later, who knows, 10-year-olds will create and simulate their own viruses on Lego Biomed Kit software and print the real things out with their fab printers.

    137. Re:Peh. by 2muchcoffeeman · · Score: 1

      Imagine just getting on a plane while carrying this superflu in say London? How far would you have it spread before you were no longer able to continue?

      I believe that novel was already written by a Mr. S. King of Maine.

      --
      Prevent Windows piracy. Use Linux instead.
    138. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding security, how is this legal to do while writing a computer virus is basically illegal ? Hell, even "owning hacking tools" seems to be illegal.

      And this guy makes a "tool" that can wipe half the population directly, and probably another quarter as fallout in the following years (essentially it can destroy civilization as we know it) and the only discussion is about the release of the information. WTF is wrong with the slashdot & world ?

    139. Re:Peh. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2
      except for a zombie apocalypse
      Rule 1: Cardio.

      The fatties are the first to go, for obvious reasons.

      (no quote from the page but semiquote from the movie)

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    140. Re:Peh. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While I enjoyed The Stand I was thinking Twelve Monkeys myself, which ended with the carrier waving the vial in front of a TSA agent before getting on a plane for another country, knowing that by the time he was killed by it he would have spread it across the planet.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    141. Re:Peh. by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 1

      I love you

    142. Re:Peh. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, how long until a virus is created which only kills people with certain genetic traits, e.g. only those with or only those without a gene which causes high production of melatonin (that is, it either kills only black or only non-black people)? All it would take is to find the gene, and create a deadly mechanism which involves that gene. If you don't have that gene, you still get ill (and therefore contribute to the epidemic) but the illness is harmless (e.g. you get to sneeze a lot, but don't have any other negative effects). The same could be done for other genes (hair color, eye color, blood group, ...)

      Indeed, as soon as genetic knowledge is sufficiently advanced, it may even be possible to construct a virus which is deadly for exactly one person, while only mildly annoying for the rest of humanity.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    143. Re:Peh. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Oops, correction: I meant melanin, not melatonin, of course.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    144. Re:Peh. by khallow · · Score: 2

      "Allah" is just Arabic for "God".

    145. Re:Peh. by tsa · · Score: 1

      Don't say that to a terrorist. Their god is better.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    146. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. Similarly, car crashes are not fatal, cos I've never died in one. It's all just a conspiracy from the airbag manufacturers...

    147. Re:Peh. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Imagine just getting on a plane while carrying this superflu in say London?

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/12_Monkeys

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    148. Re:Peh. by tsa · · Score: 2

      Here in the Netherlands it's very hard to not make that jump, thanks to Geert Wilders' neurolinguistic programming.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    149. Re:Peh. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also, this is not the first research to create genetically engineered flu with higher virulence, see wired Virulent Bird-Human Flu Hybrid Made in Lab

      I think wireless viruses are more dangerous than wired ones. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    150. Re:Peh. by tsa · · Score: 1

      I don't know. If someone 'accidentally' spills a cup of 'coffee' containing the virus described here at a busy airport or train station, the results are probably more spectacular than those of any nuclear attack.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    151. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 2

      Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world, and almost uniformly use their religion as the justification for their acts (as opposed to terrorists who happen to be of other faiths, who do so rarely). They also have a history of being willing to sacrifice their own lives to accomplish their goals. Even if they believed that they would themselves die in the process, and that muslims would be killed in equal percentages to westerners, they would still likely use it, on the (correct) theory that 50% casualties would be far more damaging to industrialized nations than to their own.

      All that said, it really doesn't matter what sort of terrorists get a contagious, airborne bioweapon if they are willing to use it.

    152. Re:Peh. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      We're just curious.

      Us Dutch are a trading folk. Do you know what this would fetch on the open market?

      All jokes aside: all that I know about virusses says this is a bad thing to try.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    153. Re:Peh. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately bioweapons need state sponsorship, a group of terrorists are never going to get the resources necessary to create them on their own. Hollywood wants you to believe that some rouge genius scientist could concoct such a virus all on his own in some backroom lab in Dirkadirkaistan but it simply isn't true.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    154. Re:Peh. by tsa · · Score: 1

      And we pack ourselves into our offices too. And in the bus and train to work.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    155. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also hard for Dutch homosexuals to openly hold hands in public these days, because of angry Muslim youths give them a hard time.

    156. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You assume that the terrorists are not willing to kill half the planet to accomplish their goals, even if half their own people die in the process. They've already proven repeatedly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of their own people to commit terrorist acts.

      If half the world population were to die off (in equal percentages everywhere), countries like the US, UK and Germany would be vastly more affected in terms of productivity, influence, and ability to project military power than countries like Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan.

      The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.

    157. Re:Peh. by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Guess that one flew right by you, eh?

    158. Re:Peh. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Well you could have helped him out by spelling "flu" correctly. :-)

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    159. Re:Peh. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I knew at least some of my Slashdot kindred would get it but it hasn't been modded Funny yet.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    160. Re:Peh. by psy0rz · · Score: 1

      That was the same reasoning albert einstein used for creating the a-bomb

    161. Re:Peh. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean the solution to Fermi's Paradox?

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    162. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Exposure via vaccination to an attenuated or dead virus is not the same as exposure to wild variants, and in many cases does not produce full immunity - why are booster doses recommended for many vaccinations?..

      Correct. Something similar came up in the Aussie vaccinate-or-lose-benefits thread a couple of days ago. Vaccinations do not "train" the immune system just like the real thing. Except for a few special cases (eg., the Polio vaccine), vaccinations use the proteins that the body will recognise to trigger antibody production. The rest of the immune systems infection response is not triggered.

      From my biologist-wifes comments (so this might be a bit misrepeated), the Tetanus vaccination rather good because the danger with Tetanus is the toxin it results, not the actual virus, which is quite slow. So vaccinating using the protein (the toxin) triggers much closer to the response the body would have for a real infection.

    163. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed. Security through obesity.

    164. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case we are not comparing apples and oranges, we are comparing the apples' and oranges' farmers.

    165. Re:Peh. by khallow · · Score: 1

      many are always thinking of how a bully might use his new baseball bat.

      You don't defeat a bully with a bat by putting your face in the way. There are many ways to deal with a bully. If your country isn't chock full of genetic rejects, that the smarter people have long ago figured out how to exploit this particular situation.

    166. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      replace allah with god.

      The most organized, most weaponized, terrorist organization is the West, whose leaders are mostly worshippers of the Christian God. Both sides believe they're fighting on the good side, and don't care about collateral damage, it's just some more dead brown people, who cares, right?

    167. Re:Peh. by GauteL · · Score: 1

      When it comes to physical security, where failed attempts to breach it will very obviously get you arrested, any security at all will deter loads of potential attackers.

      In this case, just because some world class biologists can produce a deadly virus on the end-of-the-world scale, doesn't mean that any lunatic terrorist organisations know how to do it (*). At the very least let us delay the time it takes for them to create one, in the hope that we may have a better defence when that time comes around.

      Not publishing this work is the exact right thing to do and I'm pretty glad that the Slashdot "information wants to be free" herd-mentality doesn't decide this.

      (*) Especially ones that explicitly deny the theory of evolution.

    168. Re:Peh. by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared."

      There are many, many ways for letting people who need to know this information get this information without publishing it in open access journals. I'm pretty sure the people that need to know in order to prepare "fixes" already know. After all, who are these "researchers and experts in bioterrorism" who are debateing whether it is a good idea to publish the virus creation 'recipe'?

      As I said in a reply to a different poster. Just because world class biologists know how to create a virus on the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scale, doesn't mean that any lunatic terrorist organisations (that explicitly deny the theory of evolution) knows it and if not telling them can delay the time it takes for them to find out on their own, then all the better.

    169. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Might want to recalibrate your samefag detector.

    170. Re:Peh. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      While my tongue was in my cheek I would argue that everything you just said could be applied to computer security as well. In fact this is the very argument that is made around code obscurity.

      And it does hold some water let's be honest. It MAY delay and it certainly makes it somewhat harder if not impossible for MOST.

      The argument is that the other way everyone can look and critique and come up and implement the solutions before a hacker. Certainly close the window.

      How is that different in the physical world? :)

      Oooh...I just love playing the devil's advocate.

    171. Re:Peh. by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Get a job with the TSA Grope Squad?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    172. Re:Peh. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't affect the obese? (runs)

      Running won't help. Unlike a bear, this virus won't stop to for a snack on your portly friend.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    173. Re:Peh. by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      I have pets and I rarely get sick. I also skip on flu shots. I understand the need for vaccination though if you are in the danger-zone or vaccination for particularity nasty buggers, but the average flu? Nah.

      This little bugger however, doesn't look like the common cold or flu, it's a nastier, so I would consider vaccination of this depending on just how virulent/lethal it is.

    174. Re:Peh. by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Meh

    175. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they would also never infect Guatemalans with Syphilis on purpose.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11457552

    176. Re:Peh. by CubicleView · · Score: 2

      The virus from the story is an RNA virus, so the mutation rate of that would likely render it useless in the target one person senario you mention. If we suppose some other type of virus was used, I suspect you would need the complete genetic knowledge of everyone, not just the target to be sure of no collateral damage. Long story short, I'll believe it when I'm dying from it.

    177. Re:Peh. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      The only way to realize that is to ignore facts.

      GlaxoSmithKline Q3 Profit Rises On Vaccines, Japan - Update
      http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Id=1742735

      GlaxoSmithKline is just one company. Go look-up financial announcements from other big pharmaceutical companies, such as Baxter.

      Pharmaceutical companies (the "big pharma" label is childish) do have a strong incentive to focus their attention on the more wealthy, if less serious, medical conditions of the developed world. Vaccines are far from being a loss-leader.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    178. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to run from obese people, they are slow anyway.

    179. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strong immune system vs a specific virus are two different things. Having your immune system exposed to various bacteria and viruses (on non-dangerous levels) helps strengthen your system to recognize and fight it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what a vaccination is! .

      Repeating what I've said further down ... No. Almost all vaccinations (Polio is an exception) use the proteins that the body recognises, and not the virus itself. As a result, not all the arms of the immune system are triggered. So vaccinations and the real thing are NOT THE SAME.

    180. Re:Peh. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      It would be quite interesting to see dissident Darwinists release this virus to the world with the tagline - "Where is your God now?"

    181. Re:Peh. by sjames · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect example of why the annual flu panic (driven by the media, WHO, and CDC) are downright dangerous. If/when we have an actual deadly global pandemic, people will assume it's just more fear mongering and ignore all the precautions.

    182. Re:Peh. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      The claims in the summary are not credible (no i didn't read the article). I work on this stuff as a day job. Something either kills to quickly or it kills to slowly. If it kills to quickly, it kills hosts before it spreads. If it kills to slowly it is effectively its own vaccination. And how do they know its virulence? They bloody guessed. Probably. Seriously 5 mutations happens all the time in the wild.

      The Spanish flu had a estimated death rate of about 3% IIRC. That was really high.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    183. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "Uh-merican" ?

    184. Re:Peh. by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      That's just a virus. No one has said anything about food yet.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    185. Re:Peh. by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Noam Chomsky was right. We're near the end of our 100,000 year dominance of our planet.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    186. Re:Peh. by qbast · · Score: 2

      And a month later new strain emerges that does not care about melatonin or any artificial limitations engineered into first version. Oops.

    187. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are completely H e l l b e n t on the destruction of life on earth as some are, this research should be destroyed and the dutch idiot thrown into jail where he will never be able to continue this shit. Of course there are an incredibnle number of idiots high up on the food chain that want this recipe.

    188. Re:Peh. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The regular flu isn't a danger to healthy people. 300 million people / 80 year average means 3.75 million die each year. Of those 0.5% die of the flu, almost all weakened and elderly. New strains of deadly flu can kill healthy people of all ages, that's quite different.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    189. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sad chapter in history, yes, but that isn't the same thing.

    190. Re:Peh. by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      There is one risk that few have discussed: superbugs. Like the bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics, viruses are very likely to evolve faster than vaccine development can keep up with. Ultimately human health comes down to nutrition and the environment. Judging by the way we treat the environment and how we're marginalizing nutrition in food, the trends for human health are not very positive.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    191. Re:Peh. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It doesn't affect the obese? (runs)

      Either that's pointless or they have their car nearby and it's pointless to try outrunning an SUV. And if you're in Texas, you better be Superman....

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    192. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This strain will no doubt end up being sprayed from the high flying chemtrail jets over a completey unaware population. As beautiful as life used to be on this planet, I am finding it harder and harder to believe what some of you fucking humans are doing to it.

    193. Re:Peh. by MisterMidi · · Score: 1

      20,000 of 305,000,00 is 0.6% of the population. As a percentage of deaths it's 0,8%. So maybe over 99% of death causes are more newsworthy?

    194. Re:Peh. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That's assuming, as well, that travel is not restricted once an epidemic is identified ( which of course it would be ). No, there is no reason to believe that the 1918 flu strain would be anywhere near as debilitating today as it was back then.

      If your patient zero is coming out of the deep jungle with a prolonged stop at some flight hub for his connection home, you can be pretty screwed long before the epidemic alert is raised. One thing is restrict travel, but if you have infected people on the subway in NYC you're going to have ten kinds of hell trying to contain it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    195. Re:Peh. by tgd · · Score: 1

      That's not an issue of most Slashdot readers. Half of them likely never leave their parents basement.

      The real scary thing, though, is that the new world order may be run entirely by Digg readers!

    196. Re:Peh. by Minix · · Score: 1

      Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.

      Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918.

      Isn't there also the problem that you need uninfected people to administer the modern medical care. Sure, that's why RNs and MDs are among the first to be immunised, but still it wouldn't take much to bring down the health systems even in an advanced country.

      --
      "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
    197. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.

      I am no doctor and yes I realize we have severe poverty in the 1st world as well and I am not trying to diminish that, but on the whole given the health, diet, medicine and ready access to information available in the industrialized countries, wouldn't the greatest loss of life take place outside of them ?

    198. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get down on America, like other Brits who spell words purposely different (realise) than Americans. Its no wonder everyone hates Americans anymore, if only because of the actions of about .000000002% of their population.

    199. Re:Peh. by paiute · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps you all should put down the Lysol and hand-sanitizer and let your kids out of the plastic bubbles to play in the fucking mud every once in awhile. That's how they get an immune system..

      You will recall that the Spanish Influenza of 1918 killed the people with the healthiest immune systems first.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    200. Re:Peh. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 2

      Bio weapons have been used for a long time too. Im not certain of the authenticity of the account, but I remember reading many times about mongols in the medieval era catapulted their plague-dead into a besieged city.

    201. Re:Peh. by Shillo · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that anyone smart enough to create a slate-cleaner virus is also smart enough to know better.

      Unfortunately, the article proves you wrong.

      --
      I refuse to use .sig
    202. Re:Peh. by couchslug · · Score: 0

      Equating ALL superstition with crazy is reasonable since there is zero logical defense for the belief in Sky Fairies. Islam has the most CURRENT violent loons. We are here now and past history is past.

      Equating Islam with extremely REPRESSIVE SOCIETIES is perfectly reasonable.

      NO Muslim society offers the degree of secularity and sexual/personal freedom I require. I've seen the wealthiest Muslim societies on a friendly basis, and oppose Islam as I would any other toxic POLITICAL (religion is superstitious politics) ideology.

      It's time to treat superstition with scorn, not respect. Only truth merits respect, not superstition be it Christianity, Islam, or some witch doctor with a bone through his nose.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    203. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it happens they may well say "we only thought of doing it after seeing it posted to Slashdot".

      Loose lips sink ships.

    204. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously guys? This is how mental America has made you? Living in constant fear of a threat that may or may not be real? I pity you both and hope that you learn to not buy the bull as much as you clearly have been. The only people that will ever release a virus like this are the pharmaceutical companies, not theso called "terrorist" you refer to.

    205. Re:Peh. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's over 6 9/11s per year, everyone.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    206. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're trying to spread it deliberately, don't get on a plane, hang out in the airport.

      What, like in a very long security line?

    207. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats because most of the world dont consider Americans human.

    208. Re:Peh. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting guess, it's close. The CDC reports that about 2.4 million people die per year in the US.

    209. Re:Peh. by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      With pandemia it's safe to assume that most of medical facilities would be too full to administer care to even the critical part of the population. The chances are you won't have any treatment at all in the hospital, just quarantine facilities to make sure people don't escape while they are still sick.

    210. Re:Peh. by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the flip side everyone would be able to meet carbon footprint treaties; more easily for cultures who bury their dead than burning it though...

      Oh, and with death rates likely much higher in the non-industrialized countries, the industrialized ones wouldn't have to worry about sharing resources with the up and coming whippersnappers. In fact, if you think it through, it's more likely that a disease like this (though it would cause massive economic damage) would actually strengthen the relative economic mastery of the industrialized nations over the less industrialized ones. So terrorists should take note that a weapon like this is rather short sided if they want to perturb the balance of power away from current industrialized states (identifiable as having lewd morals and a greater median net worth than the terrorist).

      P.S. - It's worth a try convincing them to look at the long road right? Maybe the sort of people who contemplate killing off half the worlds population are just looking for a more reasonable option.

      P.P.S. - If you are a terrorist like the sort mentioned in the P.S. you might want to contemplate economic superiority, technological superiority (put all that effort into science), or supporting the formation of democratic regions where your ideas can be publicly debated and made state policy when you have convinced the masses of your philosophies.

    211. Re:Peh. by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      Yes, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to be religious terrorists...

      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    212. Re:Peh. by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      thank YOU for SHARING your thoughts on THE issue*. ;)

      That said, I agree (and the bone-through-the-nose comment is great and one I plan on stealing.)

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    213. Re:Peh. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1
    214. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which "US Governement" are you referring to? No person who was in legislative or executive power through the entire process you mention is still such, and most are dead. The only thing that persists are the laws and the constitutional framework upon which they're based. Any executive branch programs (like health/research-related stuff) comes and goes with the budgetary approval of congress. And congress is re-elected every four years. Unless you're suggesting that the nation's permanent founding documents are somehow responsible, the "government" you're referring to - one that can or cannot be trusted vis a vis the Tuskegee mess - doesn't even exist.

      What you're really complaining about are the people who thought the experiment was a good idea, or who were complacent about it. And that means your complaint is about the generational culture in which they were raised and formed their notions of equality, etc. If you haven't noticed, some things have changed since the middle of the last century. In a lot of places.

    215. Re:Peh. by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      The Hebrew bible has mainly the name Yahweh, but it also has an alternate name, Elohim.
      God is just the bastardization of the Hebrew letter Yod (first letter of Yahweh because translators couldn't read YHVH).
      Allah is the bastardization of Elohim, which is one of many alternate names in Hebrew Bible used to reference god.

    216. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has more to do with Sagan and Shklovskii than Fermi.

      However, this is an ugly development no matter how it is viewed.

    217. Re:Peh. by chill · · Score: 2

      Ummm...no. Not in this case.

      In 1918 we didn't have the jet set crowd, but what we had was WW1. Massive amounts of people from all over the world going all over the world, getting sick, then coming home.

      One of the reasons the war ended was too many people dying -- from the flu.

      Then pack all those sick soldiers on troop transport ships for a month while they sail home to spread the illness.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    218. Re:Peh. by lorenlal · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd say that most of us are pretty well protected here in our parents' basements. We can't catch it if we're not exposed!

    219. Re:Peh. by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      A vaccine for polo only prevent polo, not the common cold if you didn't realize it.

      If we prevent polo, what will the rich people do with their horses?

    220. Re:Peh. by daid303 · · Score: 1

      As a fellow dutch guy I disagree, you can just choose not to listen to the idiot.

    221. Re:Peh. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      You're deriving a principle from an analogy, and I don't think that works, partly because the analogy is imperfect.

      With bacteria, (1) we coexist with a bunch that have the possibility of going-rogue, but usually don't (staph on our skin and in our nose, for example), (2) we dose them with antibiotics when we already have a large population run amuck (thus giving random variation more traction), (3) and there's a much higher opportunity to swap genes (our guts are filled with mostly-good-guys, all the time).

      With viruses, we don't coexist with a huge bunch, and the vaccine provides immunity against the small handfuls of virus that might constitute an initial infection, not against the billions that might exist in an established infection or the 100 Trillion (10^14) good-ish guys residing in our gut who might later swap genes with a bad guy. Viruses can swap genes, but it requires simultaneous co-infection, for example in a pig, tended by humans, exposed to birds. So there is an analogy, but there are many orders of magnitude difference between the two cases.

      It is true that vaccination would exert pressure to favor faster mutation, but it would need to be much, much faster -- what gates us the time to ramp up the doses, not the change in a given epidemic.

      In addition, vaccination of our "best spreaders" (children, teachers, medical personnel) and good sanitary practices (hand washing, covered coughs and sneezes) also exerts selection pressure on the virus; by making spread less likely, it favors those strains that leave people feeling good enough to be out and around and not being as careful as they should (like the common cold). One theory for why the 1918 virus was so bad was that it was very easy to spread in WW1 conditions, and thus its ability to make people very ill (which normally prevents spread, if people don't even get out of bed) was not a handicap.

    222. Re:Peh. by microbox · · Score: 1

      The strain already killed as many people as possible. What was changed allowed it to be contagious. The virus could easily develop this mutation a person is infected with both H5N1 and human flu at the same time.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    223. Re:Peh. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe they were all, at one time, patented items developed by one or the other of the big pharmas. I recall Allegra (now over the counter and generic or soon to be) as another one.

      PS - like your sig

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    224. Re:Peh. by daid303 · · Score: 1

      I haven't been vaccinated in 10 years.

      Not getting vaccinated is selfishly stupid.

      Why? Well, because, depending on the decease you are vaccinating against you just lower the odds for not just yourself, but also everyone around you. Most deceases don't have a 100% succes rate. Let's say 30% of the people that catch it get sick. The other 70% have a chance to become carriers, without symptoms they are not sick but infect other people. Let's say 10% of the people can become carriers, and the other 60% are totally immune. With 10% of the people coming in contact with an carrier you get a new carrier that won't be sick. Guess how fast this can spread then?

      Now, add vaccination. Vaccination is not 100% effective. But for argument sake, lets say it stops 90% of the infection. So 10% of the people with vaccination can still catch the decease. Of those 10% 30% can become sick, 10% will be carriers without symptoms and 60% is totally immune even without the vaccination having effect. Now we suddenly only have 1% carriers.

      Without vaccination the odds of you being a carrier is larger, and so are the odds of infecting someone who had vaccination but the vaccination was ineffective. So you are putting those people at risk. No matter how you change the numbers, the odds with vaccination are always better for everyone. Even if you add a small chance of getting sick from vaccination.

    225. Re:Peh. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      The wireless ones don't have enough bandwith to do anything useful though.

    226. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who made the "jump to stupider," I didn't see Muslim mentioned in his post, just terrorists?

    227. Re:Peh. by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Several years ago a report came out which said that people who pick their nose and eat the boogers had fewer illnesses than their counterparts! Gota love it!

    228. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wrote "the terrorists".

      You don't belong here, dumbass.

      Captcha: bowels

    229. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You manage to make a valid point using inflammatory language that offends everyone. Congratulations, you should write for South Park.

    230. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trick is to start there

    231. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50% of a lot is still significantly more than 50% of nothing.

    232. Re:Peh. by waives · · Score: 1

      do you think that we have enough ventilators for 27% of the population?

    233. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but we're not talking about an ordinary strain here. This strain has been created in order to kill as many people as possible. Saying that people should just deal with a man-made bioweapon is like saying anthrax victims are a bunch of whiners.

      Sensationalist and wildly inaccurate.

      First of all, the strain does not have a higher killing rate than H5N1. What he changed is the ease with which it jumps from human to human, it's not any more deadly than the H5N1 we all know. As a matter of fact It has not been created to kill anyone at all, other than a few lab mice and monkeys. We're not talking about some mad scientist trying to kill humanity here, we're talking about some brilliant people trying to save YOUR sorry arse.

      Second, what we are talking about here IS an ordinary strain. VERY ordinary. So ordinary that we can be almost 100% certain that this version of the strain will mutate naturally in the near future. This is exactly the reason that it was created in the first place, to give us a head start trying to defend ourselves against it BEFORE it kills off half the earth's population.

      Thanks for another round of FUD and assorted excrement.

    234. Re:Peh. by aicrules · · Score: 1

      It was pretty deep within this thread, but it was found and approved of. It's funny that a game of such simple design is popular enough to have that well known a "flaw".

    235. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... Didn't you just equate them? I didn't see his post mention anything about Muslims or any specific variation of terrorists at all. Besides, who other than terrorists (of any variety) would want a weapon like that? It's far too inexact to be much use compared with conventional weapons so I don't see armies making much use of it. I guess a psychopath may want to use it but I can't imagine that there are too many who have the resources to make something like that without getting caught.

      I do kind of wonder why someone would want to do this kind of research. Pure science is all well and good but you need to be aware of potential consequences. I mean, at least this is a flu and they could probably make a vaccine if the need arose but this still seems a touch irresponsible. And people shouldn't just blame this guy, it's not like he did this without anyone knowing. The NIH commissioned it (http://www.erasmusmc.nl/corp_home/corp_news-center/2011/2011-11/vogelgriep.gevaarlijk.mensenviru/?lang=en) and it was monitored by a bunch of "experts." So how come we only know about this AFTER he finished?

    236. Re:Peh. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      In the end, the things that really saved the world from destruction were spies, double agents, informants and whistleblowers, the same people our societies would like to weed out and hang for treason in this age.

      No, no, no, it's *their* spies, double agents, informants and whistleblowers we want to hang. Our spies, double agents, informants and whistleblowers are necessary and rewarded. (As long as they toe the party line...)

      But you are right. Even though we don't want the other nation's spies to succeed, things like spy satellites are stabilizing and more weapons are destabilizing.

      When another country builds a nuke, our military industrial complex can ask for more money.
      When another country tries to get our secrets, we try to detain or kill the agent.

      This makes sense how?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    237. Re:Peh. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Terrorists are not planning to wipe the human population, they want to instill fear and have the opponent on their toes and destroy them from within by letting panic and paranoia drive the opponents actions (such as 9/11 did to the US).

      It might be useful to remember that religious fanatics, or whatever stripe, are the kind of people who can believe that something like this canl destroy the majority of humanity, but NOT destroy the "true believers"...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    238. Re:Peh. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      Also, against some infectious diseases a strong immune system leads to a quicker death.

      That was the case against the 2009 swine flu. The few people who died were healthy adults. The virus provoked such a strong immune reaction -- a cytokine storm -- that they drowned with fluid in their lungs. The stronger the immune system the more overreaction to this particular strain, and the higher risk of fatal pneumonia.

      The immune system needs to be not too strong but not too weak to defeat a virus like this. That's why it has such a high fatality rate.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    239. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was so annoyed. I one time got Madagascar finally, only to get defeated by Australia.... Grumble grumble.

    240. Re:Peh. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 1

      While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.

      Three more words: Anthropogenic climate change.

    241. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F U idiot

    242. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.

      I am no doctor and yes I realize we have severe poverty in the 1st world as well and I am not trying to diminish that, but on the whole given the health, diet, medicine and ready access to information available in the industrialized countries, wouldn't the greatest loss of life take place outside of them ?

      Yes. The people who are screwed the most by any kind of crisis (even economic) are the poor. Ever seen one of those trains in India? Guess what would happen if there's one guy with a very contagious disease in there. Now compare that to someone coughing in their SUV. The only disadvantage a rich nation would have in this situation is having more big cities, but everyone would be aware there's a deadly disease around while in the third world many would attribute the deaths to voodoo or god being angry (can't blame the old guy, tho, if I was that old I'd want the stupid humans out of my lawn too).

    243. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 1

      That may well be true ... my point was only that anything OTC is no longer a big moneymaker for big pharma. All of big pharmas big moneymakers of the last ~20 years have been patent medicines for common chronic conditions like heart disease, arthritis, etc.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    244. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 1

      And thanks re: my sig. I've always liked it for what it says about quotes taken out of context.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    245. Re:Peh. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Wild viruses and bacteria do not come with alluminum, mercury, monkey kidneys, formaldehyde, and all the other things put into vaccines. alluminum has been shown to cause problems in adults when injected into their bloodstream. Yet we stick many vaccines into very young children at the same time. I am not against vaccines, but I think there are too many of them being pushed onto the young. Instead of letting the immune system learn from one vaccine at a time, we think it is better to overwelm it with over a half dozen at once. Plus, why do they push vaccines for things that are super rare and no worse than having a cold? You go ahead and stick everything anybody tells you into your and your kids bodies. I will make informed decisions about what I will be sticking into mine!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    246. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drive a cab. WIN!

    247. Re:Peh. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the same thing would have happened now a days. Between public awareness of viral attack vectors and our medical industry's ability to stabilize a person, I doubt we'd see anywhere near the same infection rate, nevermind mortality rate.

      Which is great for the countries that have consistent access to that. Unfortunately most of the world's human population resides in countries that don't.

    248. Re:Peh. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes but.... ask any soldier in any non-conscript army whether he is willing to "sacrifice his life to accomplish their goals" and what answer would you expect? I mean, perhaps nobody would answer it like that but, if you replaced goals with the appropriate concepts, you will get nothing but resounding affirmations.

      Even if they believed that they would themselves die in the process, and that muslims would be killed in equal percentages to westerners, they would still likely use it, on the (correct) theory that 50% casualties would be far more damaging to industrialized nations than to their own.

      Actually.... I doubt it. Yes, on the surface, thats true. We could make an analogy to chess and sacrificing ones queen to level the positional field. However, thats only a very crude look at their real goals and situations.

      Firstly, they have to be able to capitalize on it. If it ever became known who did it... they would be shunned universally. Its not just a matter of hurting us more... believe it or not, for all the rhetoric, we are not their great enemy... they pick on us because we are supporting many of the people that they would like to overthrow.

      All in all, nobody but an actual crazy would do such a thing, since its can't really be controlled, and release effectively ensures worldwide spread.
      Real terrorists are not crazy, what they do makes perfect sense in a matter of looking at it. They are no more going to use such an agent than the US and USSR were actually going to start nuking eachother. Everyone knew it was a doomsday scenario, nobody actually wanted that.... both sides, however, acted like the other was going to do it....and boy was that stupid pissing match expensive.

      Expensive...and pointless.... because neither side actually was going to do anything, except in the other sides simulations.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    249. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And witness the "cure" for the unemployment issue, homeless issue, etc....

      This is the way the world ends
      This is the way the world ends
      This is the way the world ends
      Not with a bang but a whimper.
      -by T. S. Eliot

    250. Re:Peh. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes absolutely....if you just totally ignore that they need to get funding, and rely on the ability to recruit people and keep their network together.

      When you factor in the actual realities of their situation and goals, I just don't see how you would imagine that this would actually be seen as furthering their goals.

      It would be unpredictable, uncontrollable, and make them global pariahs, losing what little support they do have, and making it nearly impossible to recruit. I think you vastly underestimate the real cost to them.

      Terrorism is, at its heart, a campaign of publicity stunts, aimed at getting more funding and support. Its hard to see how this would accomplish those real goals.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    251. Re:Peh. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Immunity wears off in general; consider shingles, after chickenpox. In the case of tetanus (as I read recently) you are also not immunized with the toxin itself, but a modified version of it -- the toxin is so deadly that the amount necessary to induce immunity directly would kill you many times over, first. Consider also the smallpox vaccine; back when I was younger, people who traveled to areas where smallpox was still present would get a second vaccination, and it would leave a second scar. Since a smallpox vaccination is actual infection with a different live virus, if live-virus-immunity were foolproof and life-long against that very virus, there would not have been a second scar. The reason to prefer vaccination to getting the disease itself is that the cost of revaccination is low compared to the cost of getting the disease.

      So in the particular case of your garden, you are some combination of (1) lucky (2) coasting on residual immunity from repeated tetanus shots over the years and (perhaps) (3) re-exposing yourself and acquiring immunity that way. But (3) is unlikely, otherwise everyone who ever dug much in the dirt back in the days before tetanus shots would have died horribly.

      Note that the shot is against the toxin, not the shot, so I think there is also some chance of your having once contracted a tetanus-producing infection while you were well-protected from the toxin by recent immunization, and your immune system may have at that time gone ape-shit on the toxin as it was produced and acquired a life-long grudge in the process. But -- I don't know that my little theory holds water, and it cannot be that likely, else tetanus would have been an extremely common cause of death among gardeners, pre-immunization.

    252. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't know ... McD's boosts the immune systems of its patrons

      Profits don't come from the infected.

    253. Re:Peh. by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Wow, look at that. Modded troll for saying "allah", in lower case, in quotes, on purpose. Weird how I don't see any mention of Muslims in my post, yet so many of you jump to that conclusion of your own accord and mod me down. At least a few of you got the point. No, I wasn't calling out Muslims as being the only terrorists in the world. I was pointing to religious fanaticism in general, but whatever makes you feel better about making giant assumptions I guess.

    254. Re:Peh. by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This merely shows the rest of us that not only CAN it be done, but that it HAS been done and certainly CAN be done in the future! Hiding the information just gives those who want to keep it all for themselves more time to do awful things.
      Thank God you're not in control. You've obviously been infected with the "make all information free" meme, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone else that there are situations when this is not true. The question is: can you rise above your programming and see reality?

    255. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Three more, more words: Mutually Assured Destruction."

      It has worked fine. Care to cite an example where it hasn't?

      Regardless, the doctrine is really only effective when nukes are only in the hands of states with an agenda which include their continued existence.

      Non-states or rogue states have effectively ended this as a deterrent to the use of nukes AT ALL -- but it still keeps China/US/Russia from walking all over each other.

    256. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, you appear to have a naturally strong immune system, so you can deal with little stuff; unfortunately, it's gone to your head and made you think you could deal with something like polio too. Luckily, there's still enough vaccinated people that you're unlikely to have to put that hubris to test; unfortunately, there's a tipping point when there's enough unvaccinated people in the population for it to start spreading amongst them even if the general population is immune.

      Luckily, vaccine deniers tend to cluster, so when measles or polio hit, it'll be concentrated in the west & midwest states far from me!

    257. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "If your country isn't chock full of genetic rejects, that the smarter people have long ago figured out how to exploit this particular situation."

      Apparently not. At least not effective enough to pass on their genes... Maybe it's not as an effective exploit as you seem to think...

    258. Re:Peh. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      International flights section.

    259. Re:Peh. by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      I see your Fermi Paradox and raise you one Universal Flu Vaccine

    260. Re:Peh. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Diseases mutate.

      A lot.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    261. Re:Peh. by emddudley · · Score: 1

      It doesn't affect the obese? (runs)

      I see what you did there.

    262. Re:Peh. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Sometimes, it's really about helpless rage and a desire to strike back at the other person despite the costs.

      It doesn't matter if you lose too. You were losing anyway. This way you both lose.

      The superbug is one of the more likely doomsday scenarios- both naturally or artificially. The cost to develop these bugs is probably within the scope of a billionaire now. Once it gets down to where someone with 10 million bucks can do it, it seems very likely to happen.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    263. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * its

    264. Re:Peh. by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      What evidence suggests that industrialized nations would be the most affected? Viruses and bacteria don't care what kind of technology or manufacturing base a nation has. From an epidemiology perspective, the only thing that matters is population density and proximity to others.

    265. Re:Peh. by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      the Novel "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert was based upon this idea. The worst of it is, the novel was written in 1982 and was quite possible then. With the improvements that have been made in the hardware, I suspect it's even more possible that Radical's could use a Bio-Weapon against everyone else after they've developed a vaccine/treatment for the damn thing.

      Personally, this concerns me far more then Bombs do because of how widespread the problem would be. Sure a Nuke used on L.A. or NYC would create a big issue but the damage would be localized instead of dispersed over a wide region such as would happen with a Bio-weapon.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    266. Re:Peh. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to spread it deliberately, don't get on a plane, hang out in the airport.
      No, you can fly -- just show the TSA inspector your empty, sealed test tubes, and open one for him to verify it's empty. Just leave a note about 12 monkeys getting loose while you're about it.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    267. Re:Peh. by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      I hold the vaccines suspect because I researched the source of these supposed miracle cures. I personally take a great issue with a society that would abort/deny one person life in order to vaccinate/protect someone else from a potential threat. So you are proclaiming the greatness of science and researches ability to shift the death toll from one segment of the population to another, that which is defenseless and cannot speak out against it's mistreatment.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    268. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that you can park them in a specific place to create terror in one locale, yes they are. Terrorists, in general, try to avoid blowing up their own houses.

    269. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do realise that half the world could die from a virus like this without anybody from America ever being infected, right?"

      It doesn't affect the obese? (runs)

      Fortunately you don't need to run to fast. I'm tired of typing now.

    270. Re:Peh. by kb1cvh · · Score: 0

      How many years of food and water do you have canned in your parent's basement ?

      There's something to be said for survialism, but even more to be said for natural selection. Those with 10 wives and 8 kids per wife might have an advantage there.

      --
      Peter AI6PG
    271. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story was goofy and didn't make any sense to me as a child. Since then, I've grown up and I've seen the American government do most of the evil things I was told communists did.

      Now it's terrorists. They're just the next evil boogeyman designed to keep what we now call the 1% in power.

    272. Re:Peh. by cusco · · Score: 1

      So far none of them are willing to use it. Want a really, really nasty bioweapon attack? Get some poor schmuck in Nowhereistan a work permit to the US, shoot him full of ebola before he leaves telling him it's a required vaccine, tell him to get on the subway at JFK (I assume there's a subway terminal there, if not pick your location), and tell him that his employer will meet him on the platform at Grand Central Station.

      Face it, terrorism ain't rocket surgery. That's why even religious fanatics and Marines can carry it out.

      If we're not being attacked it's BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO attack us, not because it's hard.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    273. Re:Peh. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Muslims don't have a monopoly on Batshit Crazy, plenty of that in the Christianity and other religions too.

      Strange that I don't hear of many other religions blowing buildings up. For that matter, the only other "religious" group that I can think of that has done any terrorist act in recent memory was the Falun Gong group and they are more of a local cult.

      In other words, you are wrong. Sure, you WANT to think that Christians, Jews Buddhist, or who ever are just as bad as Muslims in terms of terrorism, but the facts don't back up your wish-derived beliefs.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    274. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have somewhat the same thinking, although lesser so, since a new strain of ultra-deadly flu I'm sure could overpower any immune system.

      But in either case, it may have been from growing up in the country, doing god knows what that parents nowadays would faint at the sight of, but in general, I've usually been pretty healthy. In various days when coworkers, friends, or even my wife would all be coming down with whatever flu was kicking around offices, I'd rarely get sick from it. Poison ivy? Hell, I've accidentally crawled through it and was fine (stinging nettle does a number on me though). Mosquito bites generally don't leave a welt for all that long either.

      Hell, strangely enough, when we had bedbugs, I didn't even realize it since I would wake up fresh as a daisy with no marks on me whatsoever, while my wife had welts everywhere. Took a while to realize what we had, since it didn't make sense for it to be something in the entire apartment with only one of us being affected.

      But I digress. Long story short, I'd say I have a decent immune system. Which is why I inwardly pity and laugh at people who use that hand sanitizer god knows how many times a day, and basically try to keep themselves as sterile as physically possible. Then surprise, they're one of the first people to get sick, and they have no idea why, because they're being so clean.

      God help them if they ever go camping or something.

      tl;dr: Let your damn immune system do it's damn job! If you don't let your white blood cells do anything whatsoever, it's no surprise that they're completely useless when you actually need them.

    275. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world

      Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was motivated by his racist and Christian beliefs. There have been far more terrorist acts carried out on American soil by Christian Americans than by Islamists, although the one exception (9/11) had a very high death toll.

      But, hey, those terrorists are white Christians, so they can't be as bad as the Islamists, can they?

    276. Re:Peh. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the typical duration of the flu is 5 days. These troops would have gotten it and either died before they got home, or gotten over it. They don't remain infectious for weeks or months beyond that and travel home from overseas in 1918 was most certainly not done in a day. It also still doesn't change the basic premise that the virus can only travel as quickly as those that are infectious and 1918 and 2011 are nothing alike in that regard.

    277. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it's much better to die ignorant.
      </sarcasm>

    278. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Is it really that different? I agree it's more of a tragedy if 20 000 young people die of the flu, than if 20 000 elderly people do, but neither of those scenarios are disastrous for society.

    279. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Clancy put a different spin to the idea of bio-terrorism in rainbow six. The idea that a group of Eco-terrorists could use a genetically modified virus to kill off large populations to save the planet seems feasible given some of the more radical groups out there. Again a purely hypothetical scenario but it would seem the technology now exists to make it feasible.

    280. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMFTFY:

      "You do realise that half the world could die from a virus like this without anybody from America ever being infected, right?"

      It doesn't affect the obese? (waddles)

    281. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      The main reason people stopped dying from infectious disease was because of better hygiene and better nutrition and care. People die from infectious diseases mainly because they become dehydrated and malnourished, not from the virus itself. The most powerful weapon against disease in developing countries today is boiled water with salt and sugar, not vaccines.

      Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with vaccines - they can be very effective against some diseases. But the way vaccines are used today has more to do with politics than with science.

    282. Re:Peh. by moozh84 · · Score: 1

      Surely they have. Governments are usually far ahead of the curve when it's devising ways to kill people, if only then.

      It's (going to be) like The Stand.

      If I start having dreams of an old black lady and a Nebraskan corn field, I'll start worrying.

    283. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Of course, but vaccinations also have a cost in terms of money, time, and the small risk that the vaccine is faulty or you get an adverse immune reaction. If you vaccinate hundreds of millions of people to prevent a *possible* pandemic, those costs are not negligible.

    284. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Hm? Why do you believe the reasoning is wrong in this case? Couldn't, for example, North Korea just replicate the research if they wanted to release a virus of this type onto the world?

    285. Re:Peh. by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Please provide a citation (not the Chinese government) for Falun Gong terrorism.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    286. Re:Peh. by cusco · · Score: 1

      who other than terrorists (of any variety) would want a weapon like that?

      Two groups. Animal Defense Front (and the other loonies who want to save the animals by getting rid of the people) and anyone who has a vaccine or other treatment pre-made they can sell for a grand a pop. What good is a warehouse full of drugs if no one is buying them? An awful lot of executive types would probably qualify for the common definition of 'psychopath' (such as the CEOs of the tobacco companies) anyway, it's not hard to imagine them sitting on stock options worth pennies and then releasing something like this to turn those options into real money.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    287. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would work. You see, this virus is man-made, intelligent designed if you will, not thoroughly tested such as any virus that went through the rigors of natural selection. For real influenza, billions of mutants have been tried, all but a few have failed to get any traction. How many tries did we give this virus? How many has it killed already? None? Not very convincing for a real influenza. So chances are, that even though this virus has a theoretical killing rate of 50%, I highly doubt it would be able to spread effectively. The moment it gets out, it probably will get eaten by a passing microbe or so. Burp and gone.

      Intelligent design is just not up to the task of dealing with real life.

    288. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car bombs are veritable laser scalpels compared to weaponized influenza.

    289. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Proof that influenza vaccines actually work is very scarce, and highly disputed. Proof that influenza kills healthy people is non-existent (the Spanish flu of 1918 wreaked havoc on starving people, not healthy ones). Healthy people get sick, get better, and get back to work. I've had my two days of influenza break already this year.

      Think about it for a minute. Every winter, three or more new and unique influenza viruses become effective. These epidemics start somewhere on the globe, and spread from there. In some way, the pharmaceutical industry has a handle on this, and knows exactly which viruses will comprise this season's spread of influenza, and creates vaccines that can deal with these strains.

      If you buy this story, I've got a bridge to sell you. I believe in vaccinations for small-pox, tuberculosis, and all these other vaccines that work against a particular virus. I don't buy vaccines against a quickly and erratically mutating virus such as influenza. We might get a handle on one strain, but we'll never be sure that this strain is the one that's going to be the one making people sick.

    290. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      There will always be greedy and immoral people who believe the end justifies the means. The point is that these people can and do rise to power, again and again, and therefore, the government can't be trusted any further than we can keep checks on it.

    291. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      *cough* Excuse me, I almost spilled my tea.

      The US government has proven over and over again that it's not trustworthy by breaking its own laws about wiretapping, importing illegal drugs, weapons sales, due procedure, and so on and so on and so on. Other governments have done the same.

      There are a multitude of smaller, simpler organisations which are more trustworthy, such as human rights groups, research organisations, consumer organisations, and so on.

      Accountability doesn't work very well in governments because they're too large and complex for anyone to have proper oversight over them, and the power politicians and government officials have enable them to bend and corrupt the system to avoid accountability.

    292. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I don't think the guy thinks that you don't need to be vaccinated against polio and measles, but that you don't need to be vaccinated against influenza. Whole different story. Do you truly believe that the pharmaceutical industry really has a good handle on influenza? Strains the come out of nowhere and pop up at random? There's very little clinical evidence that vaccines against influenza work. Very little. There's plenty of evidence that it works for polio, tuberculosis and such. Being skeptical about the unproven, doesn't imply being skeptical about the proven.

    293. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity doesn't hold for influenza. This because, in contrast to Polio, tuberculosis, measles, plague and many more, influenza vaccines do not work in general. They work for particular strains, but there is no guarantee that that particular strain will come in your neighbourhood. It's going to be a different strain. Influenza mutates too fast to be caught by a vaccine that needs to be created, and mass-produced. Getting your flu shot is a ritual, not a vaccine.

    294. Re:Peh. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, it depends on how much the local people travel, and how isolated the location is. The most fatal versions of the disease would burn itself out quickly, as dead people can't infect anyone else. The survivors will mostly be harboring slightly less lethal versions. Wash, rinse, repeat a few times, and the isolated Andean farmer or Kazakh shepherd coming to town for the first time in three months might just get sick and may even be well by the time he goes home.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    295. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Where's the proof that the flu vaccines work? There's a new vaccine every year. Where's the double blind? Was the flu vaccine of 2008 better than that of 2009? Please try to find out. Although we are capable of creating a vaccine for practically any strain, we cannot predict which strain will be dominant. Taking a flu shot every year is not supported by any evidence, as this vaccine is not tied particularly well to what flu will be dominant that year. I live in a country where we do not have a tradition of taking flu shots. So we do not have herd immunity. We don't die of flu more often than the US though. Even funnier, one of our scientists just recently created a strain of influenza that has a projected death toll of 50%. Will you start to get yearly shots of the vaccine for that one? Every year? What strains will you get shots for. Do you actually know?

    296. Re:Peh. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      You say, for arguments sake, that it stops 90% of the influenza infection. It doesn't. It saves 1.5%. A recent article in the Lancet (link to an article describing the original article: "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis", The Lancet, 27 October 2011) states that it saves 1.5 per 100 cases (from 2.7% to 1.18%). This is spinned by the industry as reducing risk by 60%.

      With these numbers, the argument for vaccination is very thin. The same article finds that kids that got vaccinations for one year, are more prone to get flu the next year. So there are side-effects. It's not that clear-cut as you think it is.

    297. Re:Peh. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Huh? Since when? The Spanish were walking bioweapons when they arrived in the New World, the British handed out blankets from smallpox infirmaries, the Venetians catapulted dead plague victims over the walls of cities. If you want a nice high-tech weapon with maximal dispersion, etc. then sure you might need a gazillion dollar military program. If you just want to kill a shit ton of people and cause panic it's easier to spend an afternoon on the Moscow subway system with a backpack that puffs out dried anthrax every time you get bumped. (Hint: If you can brew beer you can grow anthrax, and a LOT of people brew beer.)

      Infect some stupid junkie with a nasty strain of whooping cough and pay him to hand carry packages from Denver to Atlanta to Ohare to LAX airports.

      Infect a bunch of illegals who work in the Tyson chicken plants with cholera.

      If you can't come up with a dozen scenarios in an hour then you have no imagination.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    298. Re:Peh. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Allegra, still under patent, went OTC and profits shot up even as the price went down. The only thing required for a big money maker is demand.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    299. Re:Peh. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you were the only one who picked up on the reference. One guy said The Stand and good old Captain Trips, but in that scenario a guy snuck under the fence and went by car. But when I read TFA all I could picture in my head was David Morse and that vicious little smile as he boarded the plane.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    300. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian/racist or not: Today Anders Behring Breivik was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by psychiatrists.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

      PS: Correct death toll was 77 people, with 151 injured .
      PS2: He will never get out.

    301. Re:Peh. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, posted while tired and sick. Wasn't really looking for puns...

    302. Re:Peh. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      some people trust too much. some people trust too little. how much you trust a government is often more a function of your own psychology than anything the government did, simply because you think you can judge the function of a government, any government, like you judge a ham sandwich

      the simple point is that the us govt is a democracy, meaning it has a function whereby accountability flows back to the people. with such a function, the us govt is perfectly trustworthy, however hysterical YOU are

      because, in the end, all govts screw up and make mistakes. just look at japan and their nuclear debacle. ACCOUNTABILITY is how trustworthiness is ultimately judged, and as long as the usa is the (imperfect) democracy it is, it is as trustworthy as such an entity can possibly be

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    303. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car bombs and IEDs are local. An explosion in Afpac does not cause blast damage in London.

    304. Re:Peh. by tsa · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't mean that all Muslims are homophobics.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    305. Re:Peh. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      In Christianity, we praise life and live for God, In extreme Islamic terrorist beliefs, they dream of dying for Allah. Any religion that extols death as a solution must have leaders who benefit from the financial inheritances from their followers. We also never hear about the religiouos leaders committing suicide. They direct others to die for them.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    306. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the "kills xxx Americans" / "cost xxx American lives" phrasing that has been adopted by US newscasters, US TV shows etc.

      If you don't believe that Americans are some kind of superior race, why not say something like "kills 20,000 people each year in America alone". That's what the rest of the world says.

      This point is linked to the point above about - "terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.".

      I think this attitude (on both sides) has been bred from conflicts around the world where in some cases it literally takes the deaths / capture of 1,000 Iraqis, Afghans or (w.r.t. Israel, Palestinians) to exact the death / capture of one American, European or Israeli.

      For a "negotiated price" (as opposed to "observed price in conflict") of a developing nation citizen v.s. a developed nation citizen, just look at the trade that was done for the safe return of Gilad*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit

      Maybe I'm just in denial about the "market" reality that lives are cheaper over there than they are here...

      (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm very glad for both sides that this happened - Gilad was held for 5 years without red cross visits, and no doubt many political Palestinian prisoners have seen similar human rights abuses; there are estimates that 20 percent of Palestinians have spent more than a week inside Israeli prisons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel).

    307. Re:Peh. by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure.

      1. We spend lots more time inside. We spend far more time in close proximity to each other. If the flu strain has an infections time before overt symptoms show, then it would be vectored quickly through travel.

      2. Our medical system is very good at dealing with a small number of victims. A pandemic would overwhelm it. Flu kills through respirtory failure. How many ventilators are there in a hospital? 10? 50? Not a lot of help when you have 20,000 sick people at your door.

      3. Announcing the pandemic would likely trigger panic. People would flee the cities, likely carrying the virus with them. If 20% of people are sick, another 20% refuse to go to work for fear of catching it, and a further 20% decide it's time to spend a month at hte lake cottage, then 60% of your work force is absent. The economy stops.

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
    308. Re:Peh. by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Someone has probably already crafted a similar version in a distant private or military research lab anyway. Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

      Problem is, "similar" isn't equal to "the same" , therefore any preperation would be futile, at best.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    309. Re:Peh. by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the initial mortality rates out of Mexico, where swine flu was first observed, were much higher than normal influenza strains. That is what caused the initial panic. Then, for reasons either that aren't understood or I simply have never heard, swine flu proved to have lower mortality rates than normal influenza everywhere else it was observed.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    310. Re:Peh. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      As long as we're at it: how many people know that 12 Monkeys is based on La Jetee?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    311. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, accountability is just a mechanism through which trustworthiness CAN be achieved. Whether it actually works, we have to judge by looking at reality. And when we look at how democratic countries actually work, we see that there is still a lot of corruption, abuse of power and invasion of individual rights, in spite of systems for accountability being present.

      There's a lot of room for improvement in the systems for accountability. For example, you can improve accountability by making processes more transparent, that is, by making as much information as possible available to the public. Corruption thrives in secrecy.

    312. Re:Peh. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      He said 'faith'.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    313. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 1

      Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world

      Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was...

      ...on the 22nd of July. Five months ago.

      The most recent incident of Islamic terrorism was today:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8931171/Suicide-bomb-attack-on-Afghan-Nato-base.html

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lebanese-media-idf-bombed-espionage-devices-uncovered-by-hezbollah-1.399257

      ...and yesterday:

      http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/343369/bomb-gunmen-kill-18-iraq-marks-us-withdrawal

      ...and the day before:

      http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/somali-soldiers-killed-suicide-bomb-attack-15054747

      ...and the day before that:

      http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=247407

      There were probably more, but that was just a cursory search. I could go back further - but the point is the word "common" in my statement. By far the vast majority of attacks are committed by islamic terrorists. Do other terrorists exist? Sure. ...but they're not committing attacks every day.

    314. Re:Peh. by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      Imagine just getting on a plane while carrying this superflu in say London? How far would you have it spread before you were no longer able to continue?

      I'm reminded of TwelveMonkeys

    315. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.

      The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?

      The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.

      The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.

      The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.

    316. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "against" argument was obviously that the resulting virus could potentially wipe out our species. Interesting debate!

      That's hyperbole, there will almost certainly be a subset of humanity that it won't kill. If it is so deadly that it kills everything it infects, then it just requires some people to quarantine themselves until it dies out, otherwise there almost certainly will be some people whom it doesn't kill when infected.

      However, it could lead to the collapse of modern civilisation, first-world countries are now highly dependent on lots of infrastructure, such as food transport, farming, electricity and such that are dependent on people and if a virus takes out enough people this infrastructure will collapse, I've read (or heard maybe) that it would only take 25% of the population to be incapacitated in an epidemic for this to happen.

    317. Re:Peh. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1
      So make a new doomsday clock instead of mixing it in with the cold war clock?

      But, hey just keep listening to that fat retard Rush Limbaugh and hoping it will go away.

      Who is Rush Limbaugh?

    318. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 1

      The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.

      Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.

      The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?

      Oops. My mistake.

      For that day, how about this instead:

      http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nigeria/articles/20111201.aspx

      Or this:

      http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20111201.aspx

      Or this:

      http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-december-1-2011

      That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.

      The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.

      Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer. ...and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?

      The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.

      Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.

      The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.

      So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?

    319. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's accectable that innocent civilians get hurt in a war, as long as the primary target is military or strategic (for example, a munitions factory, or a power plant). It would be nice if only soldiers got killed in wars, but we're not there yet.

      But sure, there's a lot of Islamic terrorism, and it's not justified. The attacks on universities and schools are not justified. I haven't checked the numbers, but Islamic terrorism is probably the most common type in the world.

      But to Europeans, I still think Catholic and political terrorism is a bigger threat. To Americans, I'm not sure - the 9/11 attacks took a huge number of lives, but it may have been a one-time ocurrence.

    320. Re:Peh. by metacell · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I didn't know Al Qaeda was so dominantly political. It's always connected to Islam when it's talked about in media, so one gets the impression that Islam is a very important part of it.

  2. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that is what will happen to the 99%

    1. Re:So... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      ...that is what will happen to the 99%

      That's ok, because we already know what happens to the 1%.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:So... by Surt · · Score: 1

      That is the most concise complete refutation of Rand I have ever read, thanks.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:So... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Much obliged. There is a color version out there somewhere.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:So... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Well most simulations agree that there will be around 1 or 2 billion people by the end of the century so here is one way. Of course it'll hit way more of the 99% that of the 1% but a virus would be more democratic that starvation.

    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will also happen to the 0.5%

    6. Re:So... by PGGreens · · Score: 1

      And then the current .01% would become the new, hated 1%!

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most simulations agree that there will be around 1 or 2 billion people by the end of the century

      [citation needed]

      I don’t know of any population projection that predicts there being only 2 billion people by the end of the century.

      The UN population estimate for the end of this century ranges from a low of 5.5 billion to a high of 14.0 billion, with a most likely value of 9.1 billion.

    8. Re:So... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      You may want to listen to some of the more "contrarian" sources instead of business-as-usual la-la land. They have proven a lot more reliable lately.
      The Automatic Earth and Energy Bulletin are good starting points. Once you've digested those you can go to more hardcore places like George Mobus's or Guy McPherson's blogs.

  3. Solution to these problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring on the ARM.

  4. What could possibly go wrong? by bradorsomething · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dr. Fouchier could not be reached at his volcano-based research facility for comment.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by VJmes · · Score: 1

      I heard they don't get phone reception on skull island.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking along those lines. Reporters were having trouble getting past the killer mutants and robots for comment.

  5. The by Konster · · Score: 2

    The zombie apocalypse awaits.

  6. scientists and the End by tfiedler · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is why the world hates scientists. Sure, politicians and terrorists uses the weapons but it is the scientists who give us atomic bombs, the threat of nuclear winter, super viri, and now an engineered avian flu that can kill off half the planet's population.... what next? This asshat's ego is what has caused this, and all of the other asshats who contribute to weapons of mass destruction. Raccoon city here we come!

    --
    Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
    1. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racoon city... as long as I get the girl at the end, game on!

    2. Re:scientists and the End by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who says the world hates scientists? That's news to me.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turn in that computer you're posting to slashdot with, lad. That's scientist product too.

    4. Re:scientists and the End by haruchai · · Score: 3, Funny

      At this very moment, there are thousands transmitting "I hate science" and "Math is hard" on their pocket communication devices. If clay tablets were good enough for the Egyptians, an advanced civilization of their day, what more do we need?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:scientists and the End by chichilalescu · · Score: 2

      mod parent up. I can guarantee that the virus could not have been created without a computer.

      --
      new sig
    6. Re:scientists and the End by forkfail · · Score: 1

      I always find comments like this posted on the internet to have a certain delicious flavor of irony.

      --
      Check your premises.
    7. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but without advances in knowledge it's unlikely the population would be half of what it is anyway.

    8. Re:scientists and the End by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This is why the world hates scientists.

      Yep. Ever since those asshats discovered fire, it's been all down-hill. It's rare to see a man with your honesty, though! Not many people are willing to stand up and proudly proclaim, "I HATE SCIENTISTS, because ignorance is bliss!".

    9. Re:scientists and the End by Forbman · · Score: 1

      The governments of US, Japan and Germany were asking the scientists to develop atomic weapons...

    10. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this very moment, there are thousands transmitting "I hate science" and "Math is hard" on their pocket communication devices. If clay tablets were good enough for the Egyptians, an advanced civilization of their day, what more do we need?

      Clay tablets? What, cave walls not good enough for you? I bet you think we should farm, too, breeding the specific traits in crops people want instead of just gathering whatever is growing naturally like God intended or living off whatever the tribe can hunt down. Oh and don't even get me started on figuring out how to mix certain herbs together for remedies to NATURAL ailments, just look where THAT will lead us...

    11. Re:scientists and the End by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Science is amoral. Discoveries have no inherent consequences.

      What man makes of science is the problem.

    12. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for scientists and their technological and medical advances, vast amounts of the population would be killed by things like tuberculosis and rabies, not to mention the fact that medical intervention helps people be born safely and cared for. The world population could not be what it is now without science. Nuclear bombs were created by the scientists as a weapon against hitler, the politicians decided to drop it on japan.

      You're blaming the wrong people.

    13. Re:scientists and the End by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      I think the point was irresponsible scientists, not a general hate of science in general. Especially that they are publishing this work without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and wipe out half the planet. If they had paid for this, and kept it under wraps until an antidote/vaccine was prodded then fine, but to put the recipe for it in the public domain is irresponsible.

    14. Re:scientists and the End by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Actually the scientists asked FDR to develop the atomic weapon. It was not the US government's idea. Granted, they only brought it up because they were afraid Germany would get there first, but still--it was the scientists' idea.

    15. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I need to point out that science also gave us basically *all* of the tools that allow more people than ever to be alive (food production), for a longer time (vaccines, antibiotics) with a higher quality of life than ever? BTW, what super virii are you talking about ... that you didn't see in "24"? And who do you think were the biggest campaigners against use of nuclear weapons? But hey, if the world hates scientists just start by disconnecting from the Internet, one of the most visible products of science in the last century, throw away any medication (that includes any peroxide or ethanol you may have lying around) and move to the countryside, away from any sort of engine.

    16. Re:scientists and the End by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      That's more a result of the broken education system than of scientists making nukes and viruses.

    17. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah like those assholes that invented the engine, why put those nasty global warming causing pollutants into the air when a good old fashioned slave can do the same work. Not to mention putting the slave market folks out of work, all those farmers that raise the food for the slaves and the poor manacle and whip makers children will be starving!

        Why do you hate children so much?! Everyone knows that instead of that suspicious mixture in a syringe a good old fashioned swamp leech and blood letting will cure damn near anything.

    18. Re:scientists and the End by Surt · · Score: 1

      Men performing science are aware (god, I hope) that they live in a world with imperfect people. Even rich, brilliant, and evil people. They make choices to study one thing, or study another. Science may be amoral, but scientists are not.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    19. Re:scientists and the End by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      You seem to labour under the impression that he was sitting on his hands and then decided that he'd create a super dangerous killer virus to massage his ego. As I understand it, the reasoning behind engineering a super-virulent strain like this is that such a mutation could conceivably happen "in the wild", and that if, or when, it does, it would be a Good Thing if we knew how to deal with it.

    20. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certain that death will come sooner because of science, but how else would we avoid death? ;-)

    21. Re:scientists and the End by treeves · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because you're getting all your news from AM radio! Just sayin'.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    22. Re:scientists and the End by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously implying that listening to AM radio, home of ultra-conservative and religious talk, would isolate me from anti-science sentiments? What color is the sky in your world? You should have said NPR, then your comment would almost have made some sense. Plus that's what I actually listen to.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    23. Re:scientists and the End by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know, I was agreeing with him. The irresponsible bastard who invented fire should have had his head crushed with a rock before he had a chance to really get it going. Especially when he started teaching others to do it, without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and burn down the whole damn forest.

    24. Re:scientists and the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because a wood fire can wipe out half of the planets population.

      Did you even apply for a license to troll or are you just winging it?

    25. Re:scientists and the End by treeves · · Score: 1

      No, not seriously.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  7. M-O-O-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That spells life imitating art!

    1. Re:M-O-O-N by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Yah. King has already inspired copycat school shooters with his fiction, and then there's that "fly an airliner into a skyscraper" thing from Running Man. Dude should start keeping his nightmares to himself.

    2. Re:M-O-O-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That spells life imitating art!

      Fantastic reference. It's to Stephen King's book Stand, for those wondering

    3. Re:M-O-O-N by Greystripe · · Score: 2

      Or he could write about nerds being screwed to death by beautiful women. Oh the horror...

    4. Re:M-O-O-N by russotto · · Score: 1

      Or he could write about nerds being screwed to death by beautiful women. Oh the horror...

      Sorry, King writes from the anxiety closet; pipe dreams are under the bed.

    5. Re:M-O-O-N by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Death by Snu-Snu!!!!

    6. Re:M-O-O-N by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I'm just pissed cuz I'd probably end up in Vegas :(

    7. Re:M-O-O-N by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I'm pissed about the ending of Running Man, if only because it means there will never be a faithful adaptation of that story and it deserves one. Certainly not one for a while, anyway...

    8. Re:M-O-O-N by Surt · · Score: 1

      He could write it from the perspective of the beautiful women.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  8. This is what Gradschool does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm I about to finish up my dissertation so completely understand the desire to wipe out large swaths of the human race. All I can say is only half? Looks like someone isn't ready for tenure.

  9. Yes, it should be published by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it was done, the information's out there. If the work's already been presented at a conference, it's pretty much a guarantee the black-hats have it. And if they don't already, they know it can be done and they've got enough clues to know where to go looking. So the question isn't whether we give the black-hats the information or not, it's whether only the black-hats get the information or whether the white-hats get it too. I'd rather have the information circulated so doctors and public health systems know what to look for and how to treat it when it shows up.

    1. Re:Yes, it should be published by pesho · · Score: 5, Informative

      My thoughts exactly. If you know it can be done it is fairly trivial to make it happen. The only caveat is that if you are going to do it you better have a BSL4 containment. Otherwise you will end up eating your own dog food, before anyone else has had a chance to try it. The important information from this work as far as I can deduce from the limited information being released is that now we know what kind of changes can make the virus more aggressive. This can be used to monitor the virus in the wild and catch potential pandemics before the virus has jumped on humans. It will also give us head start in making vaccines. All this makes it imperative that it gets published.

    2. Re:Yes, it should be published by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's your assumption. I'd rather we operate under the assumption that the black-hats don't have it. First of all, that seems more likely (it's not as though the full recipe would be presented at a conference), and secondly the penalty for releasing it if they don't have it is much worse than the penalty for withholding it if they do have it.

      Possibilities:

      00) Black hats don't have it, we don't release it. Very Good! No one has to die.
      01) Black hats don't have it, we do release it. Very Bad! We just gave the tools for murder on an unprecedented scale to everyone who wants them.
      10) Black hats have it, we don't release it. Bad. When and if they use it, we will be somewhat delayed while we realize "Hey, there's this new superflu that seems a lot like the one that Dutch guy came up with."
      11) Black hats have it, we do release it. Maybe good. We save some time researching cures, at the cost of making the recipe even more available than it already is (and thus saving the bad guys some time obtaining it).

      Make your own little game theory chart. Unless there is a very high probability that they have it, we're better off not releasing it. And as I said before, they likely don't have the whole thing.

      I know this is Slashdot and a lot of people think that information wants to be free, but trust me on this. The information doesn't give a shit. Some things really should be kept secret.

    3. Re:Yes, it should be published by forkfail · · Score: 4, Informative

      Remember that knowing something can be done is often 90% of the battle.

      So, while your assumption that they don't have it now may well be valid, it won't be in 5-10 years. Thus, probably a good idea to get the white hats working on counter measures now, which means (by your own logic) that it should be published.

      --
      Check your premises.
    4. Re:Yes, it should be published by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember that knowing something can be done is often 90% of the battle.

      Someone doesn't remember their GI Joe math. Knowing is 50% of the battle.

    5. Re:Yes, it should be published by Rehnberg · · Score: 1

      When and if they use it, we will be somewhat delayed while we realize "Hey, there's this new superflu that seems a lot like the one that Dutch guy came up with."

      Except that the paper will already be there, so presumably he (at least) will be comparing novel H5N1 strains to what he came up with. On the other hand, the research has been done and the paper written. Presumably, several electronic copies exist in several locations, which means that the black hats could get their hands on it without too much trouble. So releasing the paper only makes it moderately less difficult for the black hats, but helps out the medical community.

    6. Re:Yes, it should be published by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Whatever. Your mockery aside, when people know that something can be done, they're far more apt to try to do it than they are if they don't know if it can be done.

      --
      Check your premises.
    7. Re:Yes, it should be published by pesho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's your assumption. I'd rather we operate under the assumption that the black-hats don't have it. First of all, that seems more likely (it's not as though the full recipe would be presented at a conference), and secondly the penalty for releasing it if they don't have it is much worse than the penalty for withholding it if they do have it.

      Your assumptions are one sided. There is enough information to make the virus. The influenza virus is well studied and there is a wealth of information down to atomic level in some cases how it functions. We know the genetic background (H5N1), we know that the strain has a combination of naturally occurring mutations, and we know that we can use ferrets to test it. It doesn't take much trial and error to figure out the correct combination. Even if the presented information is misleading, the fact that the virus can be made more aggressive is enough. It is trivial to culture and has very short reproduction cycle,which allows anyone with a little time on their hands to do selective evolution. If they don't publish somebody else will repeat the experiments and publish the data instead. I wouldn't be worried about biotherorists. Making, containing and using bioweapons is hard, dangerous and extremely expensive. You can't cook it in your basement.

    8. Re:Yes, it should be published by pipedwho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The black-hats might have it, but the question is do you really want to release it to all the script-kiddies?

    9. Re:Yes, it should be published by artor3 · · Score: 1

      If it's so simple to recreate, then it's a moot point and it doesn't matter if we release or not - people will recreate it soon regardless. But if it's not simple to recreate, and the paper contains rare insights, then we gain a lot by not releasing it.

      So add a third dimension to my little game theory chart. The conclusion is the same. There's little to no benefit from releasing the data, and plenty of potential harm.

    10. Re:Yes, it should be published by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      That's your assumption. I'd rather we operate under the assumption that the black-hats don't have it

      Alright. Let's pick something different as the problem item.

      I'd rather we operate under the assumption that bad people do not have weapons of various kinds. It's a more pleasant thought for sure, but it also means that when someone tells me "your money or your life", I just ignore him - after all, the assumption is that he has no weapons. And that's likely to either get me hurt or killed.

      Yes, if we don't make assumptions that include rather unfortunate views, the world seems a lot nicer, but then again - a bear and her cubs also do look awfully cute together, and I assume mama bear doesn't mind if I go play with her cub.

    11. Re:Yes, it should be published by Danieljury3 · · Score: 1

      11) Black hats have it, we do release it. Maybe good.

      It can't be good. Just less bad.

    12. Re:Yes, it should be published by EdIII · · Score: 2

      Someone doesn't remember their GI Joe math. Knowing is 50% of the battle.

      Just in case anybody was wondering, the other 50% is the Kung Fu Grip(tm).

    13. Re:Yes, it should be published by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      No. All letting it free would do is to let an exploit into the wild with no patch. What if there is no cure, or it can't be formulated before the disease has run it's course? You really want to risk the lives of billions of people? This isn't information science. The way I see it, this sort of thing needs to be tightly controlled like nukes -- even more so given the projected casualties. Releasing the information would be reckless. Sure, the other guy might figure it out on his own but why give him a head start? There are assholes still struggling to get nukes. Furthermore, not every actor on the world stage is rational. Some believe the sky fairy will save them, or that dying is noble and guarantees a place in paradise. Sure it might be unlikely that such weapons could be used, but do you really think it's such a good idea to bet half the world's population on it?

    14. Re:Yes, it should be published by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      That is often true, but so far we haven't seen terrorist nukes despite everyone knowing that its possible. One could argue that this is because bomb grade material is difficult to produce, knowledge of how to efficiently refine U235 is also kept protected. I don't have access to classified bomb-making information, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are relatively straightforward was to obtain bomb-grade fissionable materials.

      I very rarely in favor of restricting information, but I think there are some lines of research that should be classified.

    15. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In science we call them Evil Scientists, not black hats.

    16. Re:Yes, it should be published by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      No. All letting it free would do is to let an exploit into the wild with no patch.

      Yes, it's exactly like that. Let's see now, when a company says "It's a theoretical vulnerability, there's no exploit for it currently in the wild, so the severity is "low".", what usually happens? Lo and behold, we find there is in fact an exploit in the wild, usually within a few days of the company's claim, and it usually turns out the exploit's been in use for months to years. And we usually find this out when victims, now knowing what to look for, find out they've been compromised and go public with it.

      You'd better pray it's not like that, or we'll be finding out that the bad guys already had it will be a continental-scale epidemic.

    17. Re:Yes, it should be published by rastos1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you know it can be done it is fairly trivial to make it happen.

      Hereby I claim that factoring large primes can be done. The task of finding fairly trivial implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.

    18. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BSL4 isn't actually necessary. It's a nasty flu, but we basically know how it spreads, how to create vaccines and many people already have immunity against H5N1 strains. BSL4 is used for Ebola and similar diseases that we can't handle at all; flu's like this are handled at BSL3.

      (Still, expect the reasearchers to have generic H5N1 vaccinations and stocks of Tamiflu.)

    19. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to cook it in the basement. Just turn an infected Ferret loose in a large meeting place - take your pick - and wait. We've already said that 50% of the infected die, that means that 50% are carriers, but don't die. Ferrets are inexpensive and love to run and hide all over the place - whoops - Jimmy got in the air vent! Now what?

      This thing has already been created - it needs to be made known to the research community so they can develop vaccines for it in case it does get released.

    20. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The production of this virus is a multi-step process, and almost certainly involves the use of certain reagents and intermediates which [individually or particularily in combination] ought to set off warning bells when they are ordered.

      It is highly likely that monitoring systems are in place to detect such orders, both through commercial channels and in major institutions and companies. You can bet that Uncle Sham has been on top of this for at least the past 5 years.

      Biologicals are much more complex to produce than drugs, so evading the monitoring systems would take a lot of skill [and luck].

      Same way they for several decades have flagged orders for things which are useful in the manufacture of certain illegal drugs. Didn't make the problem go away, but put on the brakes.

    21. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, treatment for this would expose a very susceptable laboratory environment and could, in fact, result in the initial spread of the virus. Its better to destroy absolutely all traces of any of these strains where ever they are found ~ that is if you are not H e l l b e n t on destroying all life on this, Our Earth.

    22. Re:Yes, it should be published by laejoh · · Score: 1

      If you have access to a big enough margin to write down your truly marvelous truth ... If not, it can take a while.

    23. Re:Yes, it should be published by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Except we *know* it can't, not because we happen not to know how but because by definition a prime has no factors (ignoring itself and 1) and large primes are still prime.

      Now maybe you meant large non-primes?

      def pickTwoFactors(x):
              for i in range(2, x-1):
                    if x % i == 0:
                              return (i, x/i)
              return None

      That analogy is failing somewhere...

    24. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is Slashdot and a lot of people think that information wants to be free, but trust me on this. The information doesn't give a shit. Some things really should be kept secret.

      You make it sound as if information can be contained forever, as if experiments and discovery cannot be repeated, as if one single scientist is so much more brilliant than the rest of us that he has accomplished something that will never be done again until the end of time. And worst of all, as if 'good people' are smarter than 'bad people'. Those sentiments are delusional, and a bigger danger to humanity than any scientist creating uber-viruses.

    25. Re:Yes, it should be published by eth1 · · Score: 1

      If you know it can be done it is fairly trivial to make it happen.

      Hereby I claim that factoring large primes can be done. The task of finding fairly trivial implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.

      factorprime( number )
        return [1, number]

      There you go... :P ...or did you mean "determining whether large numbers are prime"? :)

    26. Re:Yes, it should be published by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You ignore the entire "a natural mutation could produce a similar thing, and having a head start on fighting that would be very beneficial" factor.

      You also ignore that the black hats will likely develop it themselves anyway (they know it can be done, the research equipment involved isn't restricted like the stuff you need for nuclear research, and they have the names and addresses of some guys who know how to do it) lowering the "badness" of 01 significantly.

    27. Re:Yes, it should be published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      double factor(double prime) { return(prime); } // doesn't work if composite.

    28. Re:Yes, it should be published by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point. The algorithm for combining influenza genes is quite simple, fast and obvious. The set of genes you want to test is somewhat limited, and the length of the genome is very smal. It is more like "I claim that factoring the number 32 is possible, the implementation is left as an excercize for the reader".

      By the way, I can factor any prime number you send my in O(1) time.

    29. Re:Yes, it should be published by brit74 · · Score: 1

      It's a huge assumption that the "black hats" have it. There are plenty of bad people who don't have the information they want. Besides, if your logic was consistent, you might as well say that we should release all the information we have about making nuclear weapons - because the "bad guys" already have it and we need to focus on creating a "cure" for nuclear blasts, right?! Face the facts: the bad guys don't know everything, and it's not in the best interest of humanity to release all information so everybody knows everything.

    30. Re:Yes, it should be published by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      When will it be at PirateBay? They can delay it, but I doubt they can choose not to release.

      Now, that is quite like disclosure of bugs in software. They have a proof of concept tool, they should make the information available for a possible vaccine first. If we are luck, authorities are responsible enough to protect against that virus just by knowing that it is possible. If authorities and people are as complacent as they are with software, there is simply no good way to deal with the info.

    31. Re:Yes, it should be published by brit74 · · Score: 1

      The important information from this work as far as I can deduce from the limited information being released is that now we know what kind of changes can make the virus more aggressive. This can be used to monitor the virus in the wild and catch potential pandemics before the virus has jumped on humans.
      We already know what caused the 1918 flu and are quite capable of monitoring flu viruses. I saw articles years ago that talked about the genetic gap between the current flu and the 1918 flu.

      All this makes it imperative that it gets published.
      No it doesn't. You're working from false premises.

      The longer we can delay having the virus in the wild, the more capable humanity will be at dealing with it because medical technology is constantly progressing.

      I think you're doing a pretty good job of convincing me that humanity is screwed in the long run though - we'll ultimately destroy ourselves because some reckless and irresponsible people will claim that all information must be readily accessible to everybody and they'll inadvertently help some nutjob who can act on that information.

    32. Re:Yes, it should be published by brit74 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather we operate under the assumption that bad people do not have weapons of various kinds. It's a more pleasant thought for sure, but it also means that when someone tells me "your money or your life", I just ignore him - after all, the assumption is that he has no weapons. And that's likely to either get me hurt or killed.
      And let's shine some light on your assumption: you assume that they already have the information, so you're going to give it to them. If you're wrong in your assumption, then you've just armed the robbers. Also, nobody's come up to you and said "your money or your life" (the fact that someone would say that would give you at least a little confidence that they might be able to back it up). What you're doing is the equivalent of going to a convict's house and dropping off an arsenal on his front door - based on the assumption that "he already has guns anyway".

      Yes, if we don't make assumptions that include rather unfortunate views, the world seems a lot nicer, but then again - a bear and her cubs also do look awfully cute together, and I assume mama bear doesn't mind if I go play with her cub.
      And, it would be better if people like you would stop assuming the worst, which can put you in a very bad position, too. If we assume the worst about every situation, then we'll assume that somebody's going to try to kill you if you ever leave your house (I guess you'll have to never leave home), you'll assume that every girl or friend is just after your money (don't ever make friends or girlfriends), you'll assume that business partners and coworkers are out to get you (don't ever talk to them). It reminds me of how one businessman (I think it was Howard Hughes) had some really good business opportunities ruined because he was paranoid about his business partners swindling him out of money. He ended up with the worst of all results because he was fearful of the worst possible outcome.

    33. Re:Yes, it should be published by suutar · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's easy. Given large prime p, the factors are 1 and p. Large non-primes are left as an exercise for the reader :)

    34. Re:Yes, it should be published by Larryish · · Score: 1

      WOW! Eleven different scenarios!

      But you left a few out.

    35. Re:Yes, it should be published by Pope · · Score: 1

      Just as long as it's not the Kung Fu Grippe, we'll be all right.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    36. Re:Yes, it should be published by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      If we assume the worst about every situation, then we'll assume that somebody's going to try to kill you

      Every time I venture out into anything resembling traffic, I do exactly that. While pedestrians and cyclists are unlikely to kill me by accident, inattentive drivers are indeed quite likely to do just that.

      So far I've managed to stave off death by blunt force trauma at least four times, including one where I landed on the hood of the car after jumping up, so I wouldn't get sucked under it. And that was in a pedestrian crossing AND red lights for the cars.

  10. I believe this might have happened before with the by sandossu · · Score: 0

    I believe this might have happened before with the H5N1 and all the others

  11. Counterpoint by ugglybabee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Whatever kills us, makes us dead.

    1. Re:Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Whatever makes us undead makes us slower.

    2. Re:Counterpoint by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Whatever makes us undead makes us slower.

      Not necessarily these days. Did you see that piece of shit Zack Snyder remake of Dawn of the Dead?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:Counterpoint by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Well at least in the case of Zombie Plague we'll stay fresh longer...

  12. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless it cripples us. People always forget about the cripples.

  13. virus researcher practical jokes by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can just imagine the practal jokes in that lab.
    My god! the seal on the container has come undone - the virus has excaped!!

    Ha - got you! that's just the box my lunch came in

    1. Re:virus researcher practical jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd reply nothing more than: "Exaaaactllyyyy... *evilgrin* Your virus lunch!".

    2. Re:virus researcher practical jokes by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2

      Damnit, I knew I shouldn't have switched the labels on you lunch box.

    3. Re:virus researcher practical jokes by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      Ha Ha jokes on you, I switched boxes!

    4. Re:virus researcher practical jokes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I would expect them to have a guy in hazmat suit stand ready with a flamethrower somewhere in the corner of the lab, just for such occasions. "I hope you like your lunch well-done, sir."

    5. Re:virus researcher practical jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one imagining this post as a Far Side cartoon?

  14. We should be fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the virus does not increase the intelligence of apes.

    1. Re:We should be fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the virus does not increase the intelligence of apes.

      You mean ours?

    2. Re:We should be fine... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      As long as the virus does not increase the intelligence of apes.

      Or a retrovirus that is highly contagious and reduces the intelligence of human victims to near that of apes by changing brain chemistry, but leaves them alive and "OK", driven by only animal survival insticts, and permanently infected?

    3. Re:We should be fine... by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      As long as the virus does not increase the intelligence of apes.

      Or a retrovirus that is highly contagious and reduces the intelligence of human victims to near that of apes by changing brain chemistry, but leaves them alive and "OK", driven by only animal survival insticts, and permanently infected?

      Have you seen what was going down at Walmart last Friday? That ship has sailed, my friend.

  15. Yikes by RenHoek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I don't wanna go to work tomorrow (I work there). :)

    1. Re:Yikes by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      Now I don't wanna go to work tomorrow (I work there). :)

      SURPRISE! You're patient zero! You just won free health care for the rest of your life!!!

    2. Re:Yikes by RenHoek · · Score: 1

      Hehe for the short duration that it would be? :)

      Funnily enough, mortality rates should be higher outside of Europe, due to a gene that survivors of the Black Plague passed on. It should make those people more resistant to this flu as well. So my chances aren't all that bad probably.

      Although it's never a bad idea to start stockpiling canned goods and tissues ;)

    3. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know what you do with the tissues when you think no one is watching. What are the canned goods for?

    4. Re:Yikes by dierdorf · · Score: 2

      Since Plague is caused by a bacterium (Yersinia Pestis) and influenza by a virus, I fail to see how a gene for surviving the plague has anything to do with immunity to the flu. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have a counter-example, because IIRC influenza death rates in the 1918 pandemic were higher in Europe than elsewhere. And before you ask, 1918 was a more-lethal-than-usual strain of H1N1, which provides absolutely no immunity against other HxNy mutations.

      --
      -- John Dierdorf, Austin TX
    5. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Netherlands, everybody has free health care, so that's not much of a win.

    6. Re:Yikes by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hehe for the short duration that it would be? :)

      Funnily enough, mortality rates should be higher outside of Europe, due to a gene that survivors of the Black Plague passed on. It should make those people more resistant to this flu as well. So my chances aren't all that bad probably.

      Although it's never a bad idea to start stockpiling canned goods and tissues ;)

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

    7. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which will not be very much longer!

    8. Re:Yikes by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      You can play "Beat the Reaper!" (from side 5)

    9. Re:Yikes by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Cannibalizing people who may be infected with a potent virus? Now that's a recipe for success.

    10. Re:Yikes by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Hehe for the short duration that it would be? :)

      Funnily enough, mortality rates should be higher outside of Europe, due to a gene that survivors of the Black Plague passed on. It should make those people more resistant to this flu as well. So my chances aren't all that bad probably.

      Although it's never a bad idea to start stockpiling canned goods and tissues ;)

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      If the social backlash doesn't get you first, the diseases of your dinner will likely take you down before you have a chance to procreate... most cannibals in nature tend to eat the young and tasty _ahem_ healthy.

    11. Re:Yikes by imac.usr · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I feel like that's an arms race you just can't win.

      --
      I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
    12. Re:Yikes by Drishmung · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that being a cannibal during a pandemic is likely to be a short term advantage. A very short term advantage.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    13. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who got the vaccine for H1N1 didn't get the boosted immunity of having H1N1 turn their immune systems on to fight a challenging strain. I would like to argue you haven't been keeping up with your medical news, while HxNy mutations maybe extreme -- the immune system is far more extreme in its ability to adapt.

      There's enough evidence that the plague was a dual infection of a respiratory virus and bacteria, at least in those it killed during one of the major "plague" periods, that what you wrote might not be the whole story.

      And, as a guy who is allergic to wheat and had to endure the bullshit doctors telling me I was fine when I couldn't even stay awake most days, reading medical news to discover how the immune system functions only goes so far -- you really have to read more aspects of science than doctors do to discover what the immune system uses while it adapts to new pathogens to really give yourself even half a chance in this world if you have a random mutation or two that screws you over, even without the scientists developing new strains of highly contagious diseases!

      If you don't know what the immune system uses as an energy source, I recommend you find out -- hint: your muscle/lean tissue produce and store the stuff in very large percentages of their overall storage.

    14. Re:Yikes by Psykar · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can live off the puns.

    15. Re:Yikes by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      I see what you did there. YOU are sick

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Yikes by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I believe the argument there is that a lot of those outbreaks were misdiagnosed after the fact and were some sort of lethal, viral, haemorrhagic fever that popped up from time to time over several centuries.

      I have no idea how reliable that notion is, but it's the basic premise behind the alleged link between the plague and HIV and Influenza resistance that some European descendents have.

      Ultimately, I have no idea as to how accurate that might be, but it is the logic behind that and it is backed to an extent by genetics. Although probably just a link.

    17. Re:Yikes by formfeed · · Score: 1

      Now I don't wanna go to work tomorrow (I work there). :)

      SURPRISE! You're patient zero! You just won free health care for the rest of your life!!!

      Free health care?
      No, not really..

    18. Re:Yikes by formfeed · · Score: 1

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      Unless you live in the US - cannibalism and healthy eating just don't go together here. Bummer.

    19. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      By eating old, plauge-ridden meat instead of the canned stuff? I'll pass. Even then, assuming everyone else thinks it's creepy, the social isolation might be the thing that gets you in the end. I'd rather have a chance at the one chick left on the continent myself :D

    20. Re:Yikes by Surt · · Score: 1

      Now I don't wanna go to work tomorrow (I work there). :)

      SURPRISE! You're patient zero! You just won free health care for the rest of your life!!!**

      ** Rest of your life may be quite short. Please read all terms and conditions.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    21. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're canned pumpkin. You can warm them in an oven.

    22. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe for the short duration that it would be? :)

      Funnily enough, mortality rates should be higher outside of Europe, due to a gene that survivors of the Black Plague passed on. It should make those people more resistant to this flu as well. So my chances aren't all that bad probably.

      Although it's never a bad idea to start stockpiling canned goods and tissues ;)

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      ...a leg up... heh

    23. Re:Yikes by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      By eating old, plauge-ridden meat instead of the canned stuff? I'll pass. Even then, assuming everyone else thinks it's creepy, the social isolation might be the thing that gets you in the end. I'd rather have a chance at the one chick left on the continent myself :D

      Soooo it's like my life is now except I'll get to eat beautiful people while living underground in the ruins of my mom's basement.

    24. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      You shouldn't have published this. Now all the black hats will copy your idea.

    25. Re:Yikes by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I plan on being a cannibal... No need to stock up and no one ever thinks of cannibalism right from the start. Sort of gives you a leg up on everyone else really.

      You shouldn't have published this. Now all the black hats will copy your idea.

      Not really, no one reads /.

    26. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried being caannibal once. I got invited to a cannibal dinner party, but I showed up late; all I got was the cold shoulder. I sampled some of the finger foods, I grabbed some soup and it was good. I exclaimed to my host that his wife made great soup. He said "yeah, but I sure am gonna' miss her."

  16. Captain Trips! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Captain Trips!

  17. Let me say Fuck by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    Banning publication doesn't even remotely make sense. If he's got super killer virus, publication informs the public and other guys can use the information to develop a countermeasure. By keeping the knowledge secret you're just granting even more leverage to potential abusers of the knowledge.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:Let me say Fuck by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "Banning publication doesn't even remotely make sense. If he's got super killer virus, publication informs the public and other guys can use the information to develop a countermeasure. By keeping the knowledge secret you're just granting even more leverage to potential abusers of the knowledge."

      Why is that?

      What if there isn't any good countermeasure? What if the information is really good for making continual polymorphic variations to evade vaccines?

      "By keeping the knowledge secret you're just granting even more leverage to potential abusers of the knowledge."

      How does that work? The chance that a Dutch researcher is going to kill people with his privately-held is minuscule. The chance that among 7 billion people there somebody who reads this and wants to kill 6 billion people and can find sufficient people to execute it is 1.

      I think people haven't really thought this through. The potential danger is extreme, and not Y2K-hype-level extreme but close to global thermonuclear war extreme. There's no 'wipe drive and reinstall' option to cure genocide.

    2. Re:Let me say Fuck by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      If a good countermeasure is factually impossible (i.e. there's a law of nature denying it), keeping things secret only delay the inevitable. I'd rather struggle against inevitable death fully knowing this very fact (and fail), than live blissfully ignorant.

      Absurdism aside, we currently don't know whether a countermeasure exist. So give ourselves a chance. The genie of biotechnology has been out of the bottle at least a decade go, so why let more people informed about it? I think the late physician Lewis Thomas summed it up in an essay on the ethics of biomed research, which I cannot bring up exactly now. But I remember his point: censoring scientific research due to the fear of uncomfortable truths only limit our own choices in the face of change which is likely to the detriment of our survival as a race.

      To answer your second point: the individual researcher is not likely to go rampage but governments are. That's why citizens must know the possible ways the government could perform evil so that we can better constrain the beast. That's why we need the information. As for the black swan bad guy argument, I just point out that the good guys are just as many as the bad guys, and as competent, if not better (and I assume much better). The bad guys can walk the earth unhindered only if their arsenal are not understood by the good guys.

      Look, we slashdotters are having great arguments in this thread and we began thinking about securing our better future even if we're arguing. We don't usually spend time thinking this way. And this is precisely because there *is* a story getting published rather than kept secret. I think it works this way for us. Publish and enable wisdom.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    3. Re:Let me say Fuck by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "If a good countermeasure is factually impossible (i.e. there's a law of nature denying it), keeping things secret only delay the inevitable. I'd rather struggle against inevitable death fully knowing this very fact (and fail), than live blissfully ignorant."

      Really? Homo sapiens survived a few tens of thousands of years.

      I think dying, along with everybody I know, of a weaponized disease because somebody has some theoretical crap about "not wanting to delay the inevitable" really sucks donkey dick. I'm not suicidal, and I'd like very very much to delay as long as possible the not-necessarily-inevitiable-if-we-STFU-about-it.

      "As for the black swan bad guy argument, I just point out that the good guys are just as many as the bad guys, and as competent, if not better (and I assume much better). The bad guys can walk the earth unhindered only if their arsenal are not understood by the good guys."

      Come back to reality and stop fluffy theoretical arguments. Sure there will be people trying to stop it but it is quite possible a vaccine is much harder than the weapon and takes far longer, regardless of how many good guys work on the vaccine vs bad guys with the weapon. And the good guys could all end up dead first. Surely you've seen the movies where the conference of microbiologists gets infected by the killer germ.

    4. Re:Let me say Fuck by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly moved by your call of returning to the reality that ended by reminding me of movies ;) but I agree it's just talk anyway here on /.. The reality is in the labs and the hands of the many people doing the real tough job. I sympathize with them a lot, and I think censoring the knowledge works against them (and us).

      The risk of damage caused by ourselves succumbing to a potential bioterror attack is, I think, lower than that of losing important scientific knowledge and at the same time encouraging more censorship against science/scientific publishing in the future. This does sound suicidal, I admit. But I guess the society need some portion of its members to think this way so that our liberty does not rot away when we're *not* facing imminent crisis of survival. And I'm just making my point.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  18. Banning a HUGE Mistake by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few years back some researchers (Australian?) accidentally made an infector much much more dangerous. That's why the scientist need to share this data. It's so they can understand this process and use that knowledge to defeat diseases. It's like getting over a canyon a persistent but ignorant person can eventually succeed by throwing rocks at it till it fills up, but an engineer can design and build a bridge in a fraction of the time and resources.
    With regards to the fears of terrorists, it's not a high probability, most of them wouldn't have the vaguest idea what to do with that information, the few that are left know enough to not be stupid enough to release a superplague on the planet. Your biggest worry should be the Military making a superplague, and being stupid enough to let someone dumb enough to use it actually get access to some of it.

    If you stop research because you are afraid that terrorists might use it, you would have to stop all research of any kind.

    1. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you stop research because you are afraid that terrorists might use it, you would have to stop all research of any kind.

      That's a nice soundbite, but somehow I find myself opposed to giving terrorists weaponized super-flus, while at the same time not being so worried about them getting access to the latest touch screen technology. I mean, we've already stopped research into human vivisection, and that didn't require us to stop "research of any kind".

      Just a thought, but maybe we can take a step outside of the world of black and white you're painting, and allow all research except that which could destroy human civilization?

    2. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they spliced a gene for interleukin 4 into mousepox virus. That suppressed the immune response to it. It killed even vaccinated mice.

      There was a lot of speculation at the time that you could do the same by splicing it into smallpox. That info is out there, so repeating it hardly is a further danger.

      I'm sure that someone followed up the work, if for no other reason than to see if it was a one off thing or if it could be done more generally. (Pretty important to know if your vaccine strategy can be made useless. And if so, how hard it would be to do.)

    3. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Who is to judge what can or cannot "destroy human civilization"?

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    4. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's more along the lines that the barbarians who conquered Rome did so by traveling along Roman roads to get there. One could say, yeah those stupid Romans shouldn't have built those highways, they just gave the terrorists mass transit abilities (i.e., mass transit Iron Age style...) but the Romans used those roads for trade and commerce. The question that's missing here is what this highly contagious flu research is useful for. While it's possible, I highly doubt the guy is a mad scientist, so... who funded him and why? What's the purpose of this research? In the very last paragraph they give the answer:

      On the other hand, if the study becomes available for the scientific community, it could allow researchers to ”be prepared” for a potential H5N1 pandemic. Since Fouchier’s study suggests that the risk for this to occur is greater than previously thought. Some researchers believe that banning the paper will leave mankind helpless if the virus naturally mutates and becomes contagious.

      There you go, if you see a flu virus gaining the five mutations discussed in TFA, you know you're going to be in trouble.

    5. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A bathroom with HEPA filters, a homemade airlock and lots of low cost lab equipment found online.
      Add in lab "samples" and a few years to get it all working .... just don't do the manifesto thing.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by jd · · Score: 1

      The only way to be safe is to assume a full-information game. You have to assume that the other side (be it an enemy nation, a terrorist, a tax collector, or whatever) can obtain the information if they wanted it. It's stupid to assume they can't know (they're capable of spying) and it's even stupider to assume you'd know when they know (they're hardly going to tweet the fact), so what's left?

      Publishing the paper gives them data they can't use and gives a lot of geneticists data that could help in finding out how to deal with super flu strains -- knowledge we need anyway because they do arise naturally.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by mysidia · · Score: 1

      One could say, yeah those stupid Romans shouldn't have built those highways, they just gave the terrorists mass transit abilities

      OK... what's stupid is not that the Romans built the highways, it's that they failed to do something to ensure their own roads couldn't be used against them effectively.

      Even third world countries have measures to deter invaders from using their roads... what do they call them.. land mines? IEDs? The Romans could have installed some defenses on their roads they were building :)

    8. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Kjella · · Score: 2

      You assume a sort of symmetry here between virus and cure, which is probably as flawed as saying publishing an encryption algorithm levels the playing field between crypto users and crypto breakers. Just because the crypto breakers know how it works, doesn't mean they have a way of preventing it from working. We know lots of ways to kill cancer and AIDS and pretty much everything else, the trouble is it also kills the patient. Telling you how to make nerve gas won't give you an easy way of becoming immune to it, nor does teaching you how to make a better IED make it easier to treat massive blunt trauma. What makes you think teaching you to make a superlethal virus will make you any better at stopping it?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You have to assume that the other side (be it an enemy nation, a terrorist, a tax collector, or whatever) can obtain the information if they wanted it. It's stupid to assume they can't know (they're capable of spying)."

      This is false. Sufficiently strong security measures mean that only the most determined adversary can obtain the information if they wanted. In practice this means that the information will be available to intelligence agencies of the most advanced nation-states and nobody else (for example, who has detailed thermonuclear weapons design knowledge? there is apparently one 1960's era secret not at all yet publicly revealed.). These people have institutional and practical barriers to instigating mass genocide.

      However, there are many smaller groups with insufficient capability to penetrate a well-protected technical secret (e.g. TS/SCI) but more than enough capability to do some apparently reasonably simple molecular biology.

      This is a historically unique situation.

    10. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Roads have uses beyond protecting us against roads. The only proposed benefit from this research is to protect us against itself (lest nature develop it). While that is a valid use, it does not require release to the world at large. The information could be provided to the CDC and similar agencies so that they can look for countermeasures.

      Let's say an exploit is found in a major banks computer system. This exploit makes it trivially easy for any person to withdrawn money from any other person's account at an ATM, untraceably, and without limit. Do you really think it's a good idea to release the exploit to the public? Or would it be better to provide the info only to the relevant authorities and IT staff so that they can fix the problem, while doing your best to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands?

      Unless you're a total sociopath, you really ought to pick the latter.

    11. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, if the study becomes available for the scientific community, it could allow researchers to ”be prepared” for a potential H5N1 pandemic. Since Fouchier’s study suggests that the risk for this to occur is greater than previously thought. Some researchers believe that banning the paper will leave mankind helpless if the virus naturally mutates and becomes contagious."

      How about plan C:

      *) keep this thing secret with lethal force (not an exaggeration)
      *) work on an exceptionally effective vaccine
      *) repeat until vaccine is successful
      *) vaccinate the planet
      *) release some information and say how we protected you from what could have been a disaster

    12. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      Roads are bidirectional.

      Barbarians conquered Rome because they had numerical and qualitative military and resource superiority and they persisted for over a century, as the Romans had done to its enemies for the previous 7 centuries.

      This virus crap is like finding some 'hack' where by the action of 5 or 10 clever people, the citizens of the Roman Empire could be exterminated in a year. Without providing 700 years of economic gains previously.

    13. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long term, encouraging censorship of scientific knowledge deteriorates the society and leads down the road to serfdom. In the short term by providing information only to "authorities" you're inviting them to abuse that knowledge because it's in the nature of authorities. Authorities are the greatest sociopaths.

    14. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      When it comes to potentially lethal global pandemics, how about asking biologists who work on potentially lethal global pandemics?

      Since the consequence is really bad, it's worth keeping it tight unless every single one of them says it's OK. Obviously some of them are already pretty concerned, hence the appearance on Slahsdot.

    15. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Then you don't have to ban it. Since the community is aware and responsible, as you and others have indicated, the peer reviewers will stop the manuscript from being accepted. Responsible 3rd party researchers can also make themselves heard and persuade the editors from publishing the result. But there's no need of banning or dictating what kind of research can or cannot be done. Perceived threat of bioterror attack should not compromise the liberty of free speech and academic freedom.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    16. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by jd · · Score: 1

      Strong security only affects the probability of getting the information. And even a one-in-a-million chance is going to happen. However, as Kevin Mitnick demonstrated, "sufficiently strong" means bugger all because humans are so incredibly naff at security measures. That include TS/SCI labs. I'm sure you're aware that such labs HAVE been penetrated by viruses on USB sticks that were able to use sneaker-net connections to ferry top secret data back out. That's public knowledge.

      It's likely many nations have thermonuclear weapons design knowledge. What good is it going to do them, though? It's not like any nation can build the damn things. North Korea has working nuclear warhead plans and a working nuclear reactor but one of its tests was a dud and the other barely had any nuclear component in the reaction at all. And that's after being advised and supplied by a nation that had such weapons working. Every one of their missiles has disintegrated in flight. You expect them to be able to get a hydrogen bomb functional, given that?

      What if, say, Easter Island was privvy to the design of hydrogen bombs. They don't even have a reactor to obtain the plutonium needed to initiate the reaction. They certainly don't have the metalworking skills or the high-precision parts needed. They would be exactly as they are today.

      Bin Laden could have obtained off the Internet designs for $5000 cruise missiles. He might well have actually done so. Don't see them being used a whole lot. Perhaps because crude mortars are easy to build and RPGs are easy to buy, but finely-engineered systems of moderately high complexity require skills to build - skills that simply don't exist outside of a few nations - and the kind of grade of parts needed is something you're not going to find on the black market. So although anyone COULD have those plans and COULD use those systems, nobody actually does.

      But that's nothing compared to the difficulty of genetic engineering. Geneticists aren't exactly thick on the ground and the outright fraud in South Korea a few years back demonstrates that merely being a geneticist doesn't mean you're a competent one. And then you've got to persuade them to move. Relocation costs to Somalia shouldn't be too bad, but I don't think that would be the hold-up. You've then got to consider a lab. Genetics labs are "clean room environments". Want to tell me how many construction workers in Pakistan have the faintest idea about how to assemble one of those? Buying the equipment wouldn't be easy, either. There aren't that many manufacturers working in gene modification technology. Gene decoding - dime a dozen. Splicing - costs a bit more. Unlike the cruise missile, this isn't stuff you can throw together in your garage in a spare evening after a long day's jihadding. This is stuff you need the experts to do and - y'know - the experts are probably not going to deliver to #1, Blow 'Em Up Road, Boomtown. They'd likely not deliver to any address at all that wasn't certified as a legit business involved in genetics.

      So, probably no equipment, probably no expert who knows how to use such equipment, probably no expert who knows what genes to splice and probably no samples of the specific flu virus (there's a lot of flu viruses) or the specific genes you want to splice in. Oh, and given how difficult it is to replicate viruses outside of a host cell, probably no means of turning the single viral strand into any kind of weapons. There are standard methods of cloning viruses, but researchers already know that these methods weaken the virus and eventually renders it harmless. Nobody quite knows why. The Spanish Flu labs currently experiment with is NOT the Spanish Flu that actually killed millions, it is a very tame version that has mutated through the many iterations it has been through. If it were to ever escape, it might cause people to sneeze a little more than usual. To be able to create a viral bio-weapon, you also need a mad genius who can develop new techniques for creating enough of the stuff.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      If you stop research because you are afraid that terrorists might use it, you would have to stop all research of any kind.

      That's a nice soundbite, but somehow I find myself opposed to giving terrorists weaponized super-flus, while at the same time not being so worried about them getting access to the latest touch screen technology. I mean, we've already stopped research into human vivisection, and that didn't require us to stop "research of any kind".

      Just a thought, but maybe we can take a step outside of the world of black and white you're painting, and allow all research except that which could destroy human civilization?

      Quite. This would be a huge boon to Muslims. Their countries have overpopulation problems and a huge growth rate. It would destabilise the west a lot more than them to lose 30% of the population. And their theology teaches them that any Muslims killed by the release would be martyrs

    18. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by meglon · · Score: 1

      Your biggest worry should be the Military making a superplague, and being stupid enough to let someone dumb enough to use it actually get access to some of it.

      I'm sure there's an MOS for that.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    19. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      As someone touched upon, the problem was not that the Romans built roads that the barbarians used to move their troops on to defeat Rome. The problem was that the Romans trained the barbarians as soldiers and in military tactics and then gave them the option of selling their children into slavery or starving to death. The barbarians demonstrated to Rome that they had a third option.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      right, why didn't the romans think of TNT? Besides, as someone else already posted, that wouldn't have done much in the face of mass defection.

    21. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      +1. Wish I had mod points today. Not that I would say its impossible, but you gave a very good illustration of why its *hard*, *really hard*.

    22. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      No, the benefit is that it will protect us against Nature, when Nature by chance repeat the steps of the researchers.

    23. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by brit74 · · Score: 1

      We've gone 90 years without it getting those 5 mutations. Also, medical technology is advancing whether or not we have access to this particular virus. I'd bet money that we'd have a cure for these kinds of viruses within a few decades even if we don't recreate this particular virus.

    24. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the main hurdle for developing nuclear weapons is obtaining the source material, not the blueprints. I have no idea how much easier (cheaper) it would be to create a bioweapon. Does anyone have more knowledge about the cost?

    25. Re:Banning a HUGE Mistake by geoskd · · Score: 1

      This is false. Sufficiently strong security measures mean that only the most determined adversary can obtain the information if they wanted. In practice this means that the information will be available to intelligence agencies of the most advanced nation-states and nobody else (for example, who has detailed thermonuclear weapons design knowledge? there is apparently one 1960's era secret not at all yet publicly revealed.).

      While I do not possess detailed plans, I have enough general knowledge that I could build a thermonuclear device that when detonated would produced a very significant yield (probably not even close to 50% efficient, but when you're talking tens of kilotons in the terrorist sense who cares about order of magnitude). The production of the fuel is not trivial, and is the only reason terrorist have not successfully created a bomb of their own. Note that Stuxnet had nothing to do with the production of nuclear weapons, but was designed to disrupt the creation of the fuel... The Ulam-Teller design is an open secret, and there is enough detail on the web to rebuild the device to good enough specifications to get at least a couple of tens of kilotons. The only remaining obstacle is cost, which thankfully is still prohibitive for anyone except a nation (mostly due to fuel costs).

      Getting critical mass is easy. Keeping from getting critical mass until "go time" is harder but still not that difficult. Fortunately mistakes in this field tend to be lethal...

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  19. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    That may be true, but I don't like the idea of "stronger" meaning "those that can survive super-influenza".

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  20. They should be able to publish their research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they publish the antidote or cure.
    This scientist probably should be careful. There have been a lot of microbiologists/scientists that have been having accidents supposedly.

    1. Re:They should be able to publish their research by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      When they publish the antidote or cure.
      This scientist probably should be careful. There have been a lot of microbiologists/scientists that have been having accidents supposedly.

      [Citation needed]

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
  21. Am I just cynical? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    Or does anyone out there think the likelihood of a extremely contagious flu virus going into the wild would escalate somewhat if the occupy protests escalated into a popular uprising that could overthrow the capitalistic system?

    You want to occupy hey? This will keep you occupied !

    1. Re:Am I just cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, by killing half the entire workforce and consumer market?

      No wonder you damn socialist trolls can't achieve anything. Get real kid.

    2. Re:Am I just cynical? by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

      More likely to get a cholera outbreak with all those crusties in tents.

    3. Re:Am I just cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "28 Days Later" anyone? Often those with the best of intentions can cause the most damage.

    4. Re:Am I just cynical? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Since diseases spread more rapidly when populations are dense and living conditions are less than ideal (come on, how many hippies really shower?) I wouldn't be surprised if one of the occupy protests indavertantly created their own super-virus

    5. Re:Am I just cynical? by lgw · · Score: 1

      All sorts of health conditions spring up when you shit where you eat. So far there are problems with TB, scabies, and ringworm, and no doubt more to come without any need for the government to get involved. Anyhow, it's not like anyone takes poopstock seriously as a threat to anything but sanitation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Am I just cynical? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's not cynicism, that's paranoia. I know, the line between them can be a fine one, but you've crossed it and started sprinting.

    7. Re:Am I just cynical? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      Create a list of all the valid reasons for engineering a virus designed to kill billions of people, how many of the top 10 get rated as paranoid?

    8. Re:Am I just cynical? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      You are kidding yourself if you think the 1% need more than half of the remaining 99% to keep living a blissful care free life. Technology is rapidly advancing beyond the need for serfs. I laugh at the fools who call themselves right wing/republican, most of them are in no way served by the interests of the right.

    9. Re:Am I just cynical? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Depends on who's making the list, doesn't it?

      Personally my list would go something like this:

      1. Curiosity.
      2. Chance to develop a better understanding of infectious diseases.
      3. Ability to study highly-virulent strains creates an opportunity to develop new control measures.

      A crazy person would have a much different list. Hell, ask a maniac to make a top 10 list for why chocolate ice cream is so good, and chances are most of his reasons will come off as paranoid.

    10. Re:Am I just cynical? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      You're kidding yourself if you think the "1%" need the "99%" only as serfs.

      And only the ones without a life think the top members of the society go to the top just to live a care free life.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    11. Re:Am I just cynical? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      1. Curiosity.

      Heh.... funny, heard of the expression "Curiosity killed the cat?".

      2. Chance to develop a better understanding of infectious diseases.

      I don't understand how this sort of research helps our understanding of infectious diseases, I've read nothing to indicate it does.

      3. Ability to study highly-virulent strains creates an opportunity to develop new control measures.

      Great! Create solutions for problems you've invented, the best kind of marketing there is.

      I think your point of view isn't shared by a large portion of the scientific community who as stated in the article have major concerns about this type of research.

    12. Re:Am I just cynical? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      There are people out there who know, without having to work another day in their life, that they will always have more money than they'll ever be able to spend and so will their children and their grand children and... etc etc etc. Should I have said relatively care free?

      Most people don't even understand they are slaves... To quote Goethe "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

    13. Re:Am I just cynical? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Heh.... funny, heard of the expression "Curiosity killed the cat?".

      Yeah - ignorant little people have long been telling stories to discourage their betters from trying new things.

  22. Reminds me of GLaDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lynn Enquist, quoted in the article, reminds me of GLaDOS:

    I find it really, really hard to think about telling people not to do science.

  23. Barn doors and horses: by Hartree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exactly. The important info was that the strain can be made to be transmissible by air in mammals.

    That was an open question, and some felt that it was unlikely. Now, it's known that it can be done.

    If you know that it can be done, there are only a limited number of ways it could have been done. Now, you just have to figure out which. They even outline the basic idea in several places.

    It looks like it was a pretty standard method of passing the virus repeatedly through ferrets to select for those variants best adapted.

    There may be a few nuances, but now that it's been done just about any lab that works on that strain with ferrets for test animals can probably repeat the work even without further info.

    1. Re:Barn doors and horses: by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well gentleman, we can stop this problem in it's tracks.

      We will patent the little motherfucker.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then we can sue anyone who catches the disease for patent infringement!

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    3. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest we get them for copyright infringement. Non-commercial use of patented principles is legal, whereas mass reproduction of copyrighted material without a license is not.

    4. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a web of tripwires around Dr. Fouchier and watch who looks into him and his work.

      He who delves the deepest deserves the greatest scrutiny. What better way to flush out someone who otherwise might have been working in the fog?

    5. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no exception in patent law for non-commercial use that I can see. Of course it would rarely make sense for a patent holder to sue an individual making non-commercial use of their patented technology, but in principle they have the right to do so.

    6. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god. Profit! It's the ??? we've been looking for!

    7. Re:Barn doors and horses: by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The important info was that the strain can be made to be transmissible by air in mammals.

      Yes! That's the most interesting part of the original paper. They took a virus that was transmissible only by direct fluid contact, and they turned it into an airborne strain with a fairly long range. And they did that without reducing its lethality. That's a significant step toward weaponizing any virus.

      All we need now is the ability to target that virus to a specific human genotype. Then the Genocide Wars begin. But that's not forecasted to happen for another 25 years or so...

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  24. Too late by Mortiss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A genetic study showed that new virus strain presented five mutations, and all could be also observed in nature - but only separately, not all five combined."
    With this sentence, they have practically gave it away already. All one has to do now is to scan the scientific literature for the appropriate five mutations that confer increased airborne transmissibility, perform site directed mutagenesis and voila.

    They should follow the footsteps of Australian researches (who inserted IL4 gene into the mousepox creating a very lethal strain) and publish this anyway.

    1. Re:Too late by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If this sort of "spoiler" is enough to give away the game, then we better had not be relying on more security by obscurity! Let's replicate the research in "white hat" labs and develop a patch (vaccine) ASAP!

    2. Re:Too late by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      What if there is no patch, or if by the time you write one for the latest 0 day(unique strain), billions of people have died?

    3. Re:Too late by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      then we are already screwed. Sometimes pessimism gains us nothing. Lets consider the possibility of developing a patch and invest in that.

    4. Re:Too late by brit74 · · Score: 1

      We can come up with a cure for anything. I'm working on a cure for nuclear blasts right now!

    5. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the full disclosure part:

              "We have found a bug, and we'll give you 3 months to develop a patch, and then we'll release the complete description together with a proof-of-concept."

  25. Viral Wars by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    If a scientist can make this stuff in a lab now, in ten years an eager and intelligent sociopath can make this stuff in his basement.

    We're not getting off this planet. We'll kill each other first.

    1. Re:Viral Wars by gzipped_tar · · Score: 2

      And in the same ten years, scientists will have already made this stuff harmless. Precisely because this kind of research and knowledge is not banned.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:Viral Wars by Mortiss · · Score: 1

      This concept and its outcomes were nicely explored in the story "King of Pain" by Jacek Dukaj. (I think English translations of the Polish original are already available).

      Basically, when every nut and terrorist is able to brew a super-plague, the outcome is dissolution of all forms of government, which simply must cave in to the demands or face genocide. This results in formations of small anarchy states. No larger govt. structures exist, since even if terrorists' demands are met, they become well known and hence they can become the targets themselves and the vicious cycle continues.

    3. Re:Viral Wars by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      We're not getting off this planet. We'll kill each other first.

      Now you have to ask yourself - is this a feature? Or a bug?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Viral Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a guy who lives alone, I have worse stuff in my fridge right now. I have some of the original anti-biotics growing on an old orange...But there are a lot of other nasty molds and crap growing in my sink.

    5. Re:Viral Wars by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      Really, just like HIV has been made harmless. Just took two or three labs a few weeks to have an effective vaccine.

      Wait, it didn't happen that way. Because HIV hacks into your immune system.

      And other viruses if sufficiently malevolent can do the same, explaining how to do this in detail is exceptionally dangerous.

      Your biology is not like a computer. You and the laws of biochemistry are not infinitely reprogrammable.

      HIV still kills, but slowly and is not transmissible easily. Suppose you get a combination viruswhich suppresses your immune response, is transmitted by air, and is lethal? You will be dead.

      No such a thing has not occurred in evolutionary history because, without non-random malevolent selection, they do not thrive by doing that.

    6. Re:Viral Wars by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Nah. We're more resilient than that. We'd crawl back from the ashes, form a new civilization, and then kill ourselves for good.

    7. Re:Viral Wars by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Ahh, you'll never really understand that book until you've read it in the original Klingon.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    8. Re:Viral Wars by cowtamer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I was going to say the exact same thing. Biology is NOT Computer Science, despite the superficial similarities. It's a lot easier to destroy than fix in biological systems. Open-source virologists ain't gonna fix this one!

      Destroy the article, virus, etc. Bar the scientist who did this from all future funding and keep him under surveillance lest he get tempted by others (i.e., give him a desk job).

    9. Re:Viral Wars by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      We're not getting off this planet. We'll kill each other first.

      We'll kill ourselves first

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    10. Re:Viral Wars by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Hint: HIV is only a problem because it doesn't kill its host (or at least takes a decade for killing it).

  26. Captain Trips by Ogre332 · · Score: 2

    Stephen King is probably rolling in his grave.

    --
    Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Captain Trips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He might be if he was dead...

      But he would write a 100000 page book describing the interior of the casket first.

    2. Re:Captain Trips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's still alive...

    3. Re:Captain Trips by brentrad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course Stephen King isn't dead, but he probably keeps a spare grave out in his back yard that he can roll around in.

  27. H5 and highly contagious? Yikes! by jhantin · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, at least in humans, influenza hemagglutinin 5 tends to attach very well down deep in the lungs but not so well higher in the airway. Therefore H5 flus are particularly nasty if you get one, but they haven't historically been very contagious. I have to wonder if that's where the difference lies: something improving on H5's ability to attach higher in the airway, without compromising its existing affinity too much.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  28. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. And being crippled is much much worse than being dead. Because you get to suffer the whole damn rest of your life, and can't do shit about it.

  29. Cost of controlling the damage by spmkk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

    Sure - AS LONG AS the "fixes" (e.g. antidote or vaccine) are engineered, produced and ready for distribution BEFORE such info gets out.

    Moreover, if you're going to take the prerogative of developing a bioweapon with the capability of causing mass casualties, it's also your responsibility to secure funding for inoculating or treating everyone affected. Just recently there was an outcry here about the government spending $433M on smallpox treatment in the event of an outbreak. If this is as dangerous as they claim, the treatment cost would be orders of magnitude higher than that. The UN will inevitably come to Washington cap in hand, but we're broke. Who's going to pay for it?

    1. Re:Cost of controlling the damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heard of mutations? When this is out, it's out, end of it. Every [couple of] year[s] it will mutate. Even if vaccine was created preemptively many would die before the new mutation was identified, secondly vaccine itself would kill plenty of people or do you think vaccines are completely harmless?

      Anyhow, this knowledge is out now, I'm sure many are going to try to contact this researcher and other researchers in one way or another to get their hands on this knowledge. What must be done, is to decide whether research in ways to kill humans when it comes to biological warfare should be done at all. Biological defense is one, but warfare is unnecessarily stupid considering the consequences. Everyone is afraid of the a-bomb/h-bomb but this is much worse, because this gets out of control easily. [A|H]-bombs are controllable.

  30. Versions may not be equivalent by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone has probably already crafted a similar version in a distant private or military research lab anyway. Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

    Actually various independently crafted versions may be different enough that a "cure" for one is ineffective against another.

    1. Re:Versions may not be equivalent by Forbman · · Score: 1

      But they have to start somewhere with something to make a fix, either prophylactic (e.g., vaccine), antiviral (post-infection), or treat some of the symptoms (treat or prevent the system shock that the 1918 flu seemed to cause).

    2. Re:Versions may not be equivalent by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone has probably already crafted a similar version in a distant private or military research lab anyway. Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

      Actually various independently crafted versions may be different enough that a "cure" for one is ineffective against another.

      True enough, but having practice in developing "solutions" for dozens of similar problems is a lot better than starting from sulfa drugs and trying to work your way up.

    3. Re:Versions may not be equivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is rather unlikely, surface proteins on the outside of the cell are what antibodies recognize. you aren't going to be able to design away all of those cell surface proteins, and some are essential for cell function and can't be deleted.

  31. This is why Mars, now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a matter of time before something like this is released on Earth. That said, it would be a quick way to get our population down to where it needs to be and shut up those fucking anti-vaccers for a very, very long time.

    1. Re:This is why Mars, now. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That said, it would be a quick way to get our population down to where it needs to be and shut up those fucking anti-vaccers for a very, very long time.
      Unfortunately, the flu would probably mostly affect the part of the world that is actually able to sustain itself, since a lot of the population of the world that is unable to feed their children is more isolated.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  32. Develope a vaccine, then publish (if they must) by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    Don't see why they *need* to publish this work, but if it is done can they atleast wait until they have administered 200 million or so vaccinations?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Develope a vaccine, then publish (if they must) by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      But sharing the information with peers in med research tends to help developing a better vaccine, faster.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  33. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by darth+dickinson · · Score: 2

    "Whatever doesn't kill you, only delays the inevitable..."

  34. University of Pittsburg in Baltimore by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Strangely enough, it's true.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  35. So that's way I can suddenly do magic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hubba dubba dub.
    On to Las Vegas anybody?

  36. I'm immune to H1N1.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the proteins would probably be at least similar enough that I wouldn't die from it.

  37. WHAT?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the FUCK is wrong with people?? WHY woulld somebody even try to make a super contageous and deadly virus?? Just to prove a point?? He could make "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" a reality and kill us all! That's surely nothing to be playing around with!

  38. Time to go into space? by CptJeanLuc · · Score: 1

    Makes me think about this Stephen Hawking quote from wikiquote.org, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

    I do not bother spending too much time pondering the various things that could happen; each of them seems rather unlikely and if the risk is very low or there is nothing one can do to reduce the risk anyways, might as well just get on with life and leave it to fate. So I am not too much into the doomsday mentality.

    The problem is mathematically there is nothing average about the effect of a planetary catastrophy. If there is just a small chance that some single lunatic is in the position to do something crazy which has the potential to wipe out the world's population, then over the course of a very long timespan the probability that it happens becomes very high. And there is no recovery from such an event .So even though I would guess we are good to go for the next few decades, technology is only going to advance including our ability to cause destruction at even larger scales than currently.

    As a bit of a technology nerd I think it would be quite fun to see how we could start by conquering our own solar system. It would be nice knowing we have improved our chances to survive as a species. Plus a global space colonization initiative would probably generate a bunch of jobs, not necessarily bad for the current economy.

    Ah well who am I kidding, not going to happen in near future - but one can always dream :-)

    1. Re:Time to go into space? by Genda · · Score: 1

      Again by not keeping all you "Humans" in one basket, you ensure that the acts of a single loon are at worst limited to a specific human population and not all people anywhere in the universe.

    2. Re:Time to go into space? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Again by not keeping all you "Humans" in one basket, you ensure that the acts of a single loon are at worst limited to a specific human population and not all people anywhere in the universe.

      There is still the loon's orders to deal with. Example : Silent Running. Suppose the robots took over to destroy the plants?

  39. The NIH has caused this... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Informative

    This asshat's ego is what has caused [...] an engineered avian flu that can kill off half the planet's population

    Actually, that would be the NIH ( http://www.nih.gov/ ), who requested that this research be done, funded it, etc.;
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists-brace-for-media-storm.html

    And really, I'd rather they do research it and find some manner of defense against it than that some actual 'asshats' figure it out and use it as a weapon first, or nature finds its own way to such a 'killer virus', without a defense in place.

    The only particularly troubling time is when these findings are made public, because among the "ZOMG WE'RE DOOMED" people like you there's always the chance that there's one complete nutcase who goes to such a research facility to try and disrupt the work - and inadvertently releases things into the wild with far worse consequences.

    That's not to say it shouldn't be made public - just that the designation of risk is often misplaced.

    Besides, the world doesn't hate scientists - if they did, the world should be largely Amish (actually, they don't even hate scientists, but their lifestyle would come close to one in which a society does hate scientists).

    1. Re:The NIH has caused this... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I agree with almost everything you said... BUT I would remind you that it was a US government employed bio-warfare scientist that launched the Anthrax Attack. Thank God he was only working with weaponized Anthrax.

      So one of the only examples of a bio-weapon being used wasn't the result of a nutjob but a nutjob employed in a very similar manor to this flu strain scientist.

    2. Re:The NIH has caused this... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      or nature finds its own way to such a 'killer virus'

      In my opinion, the difference between a killer asteroid and a killer plague is that you can search the sky with telescopes for the first, but you can search every jungle on Earth with microscopes and still not see the second one coming.

    3. Re:The NIH has caused this... by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you might want to read this: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_anthrax_fbi/all/1

      there's serious doubt, even among his colleagues that pointed the FBI in his direction, that he did it. Was it him? Was he a patsy? Was he even involved or did he just have a guilty look and happen to be in the right place at the wrong time.

      Really interesting read, and plenty of the facts can be found from other sources, I'm just too lazy tonite to find more links. mmm beer good. Read it, whether you still think he's guilty or not, you may learn some interesting stuff.

    4. Re:The NIH has caused this... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      damn it! i was responding to this "a US government employed bio-warfare scientist that launched the Anthrax Attack" forgot to quote you...

    5. Re:The NIH has caused this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And really, I'd rather they do research it and find some manner of defense against it than that some actual 'asshats' figure it out and use it as a weapon first, or nature finds its own way to such a 'killer virus', without a defense in place.

      Figured "it" out? Do you think it's at all likely that "our guys" virus and its defenses will be compatible with someone elses? Or nature's killer virus?

    6. Re:The NIH has caused this... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The only particularly troubling time is when these findings are made public, because among the "ZOMG WE'RE DOOMED" people like you there's always the chance that there's one complete nutcase who goes to such a research facility to try and disrupt the work - and inadvertently releases things into the wild with far worse consequences.

      If your research project has the potential to kill half the world should a nutjob interfere, one would hope you'd hire guards, or at least lock the door.

      --

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

    7. Re:The NIH has caused this... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It isn't the one, it is the thousands of others diseases that will inevitably follow. And if you REALLY want to add in conspiracy theories about this and other similar initiatives all you need to do is look at the Secular Ten Commandment Monument (Georgia Guide Stones), and the first two "commandments" of the Elites that erected it ...

      1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
      2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

      Ever wonder how they were going to get there? Now you know.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:The NIH has caused this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Besides, the world doesn't hate scientists - if they did, the world should be largely Amish (actually, they don't even hate scientists, but their lifestyle would come close to one in which a society does hate scientists)."

      Hochmut!

    9. Re:The NIH has caused this... by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      Umm. No.

      A dinosaur killer pretty much knocks out higher life.

      Most plagues kill off under 90% of the potential victims.

      A dinokiller rock will devastate a continent, and provide nuclear winter over most of the rest of the planet. Smaller rocks may leave a hemisphere habitable.

      If you aren't in the way of the rock itself, most fatalities will be from starvation and civil unrest.

      A disease kills you more directly, alhough in a serious pandemic, civil unrest will also play it's role.

      One year after a pandemic, you can still grow crops,

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  40. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    Until we're fitted with bio-mechanical replacements that give us near super-powers...

    Ok, only partly kidding: I lost my hearing - spinal meningitis - but I do alright, now, with a cochlear implant. Could be worse...

  41. Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a religion out of finding the cure.

  42. Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reduce the World's population by half, that's a great start.

    1. Re:Perfect by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Let's start with the lawyers and politicians...

    2. Re:Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for volunteering!

  43. Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically that means that Iran is censoring computer games, while the US is censoring science?

  44. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I saw that movie.

  45. Re:I believe this might have happened before with by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    Yes you had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
    Australia "lost" its rabbit controlling calicivirus during quarantine compound "testing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological_measures
    Who knows what the US lost from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_Island_Animal_Disease_Center after the 1950's ???
    Don't worry, the US wanted to move its new high-security animal disease lab to .... Manhattan, Kansas.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  46. Frank Herbert's 'White Plague' by morikahnx · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Plague Molecular Biologist goes crazy after his wife is killed in an IRA attack. Develops a virus that kills only women. Great story and delves into the ramifications of what is right and wrong when it comes to science. Personally I think all good reasons to obfuscate, prevent, or hide scientific research - as long as it doesn't hurt people - are all short term. The security gained from ignorance will only last until someone else develops it secretly. All that is left then is ignorance.

    1. Re:Frank Herbert's 'White Plague' by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent Up. This is the best SF paradigm for the story. King's epic was a dark fantasy soap opera about the aftermath. The White Plague is a Science Fiction account of the plague itself.

      And Herbert's other novels are far too overlooked, anyway. I highly recommend any SF fan to explore his full bibliography. The White Plague is a good place to start.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  47. Security? by stoicfaux · · Score: 2

    So not only did a civilian institution create a MWD, it has *civilian* security guarding it...? Does this worry anyone else?

    1. Re:Security? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Iron Man is a civilian.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  48. It's all about vanity. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    and egos the size of the moon. That's why narcissism is so dangerous.
     

    --
    Deleted
  49. Time for an A.R.M.? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Well this news is very depressing, it shows that when the singularity comes (the ability to REALLY control matter at the atomic level)* the potential for abuse may overwhelm the benefits.

    Perhaps, if the world could get its act together (highly unlikely, they can't even save the euro), a UN agency A.R.M. (I forget what it stands for, go ask Larry Niven) could be put into place to keep certain technologies under control. I guess it would be like MIB but focused on humans not Aliens.

    *I think a bioengineered virus qualifies as one of mankind's first crude attempt at a self-replicating nano-assembler.

    1. Re:Time for an A.R.M.? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      UN agency A.R.M. (I forget what it stands for, go ask Larry Niven)

      Amalgamated Regional Militia.

      But, I think, the more relevant story would be Vinge's "Rainbows End" - and the pervasive surveillance society they have in there for exactly the reason described in TFA. I don't recall the exact wording, but IIRC, one of the characters explains that, when an average guy gone crazy can build a nuclear bomb (or something similarly destructive) in a basement, you need to keep track of who does what all the time, to catch any potential danger before it's too late.

      Curiously enough, this thinking in the book also leads to pervasive DRM - all equipment must have government-controlled wiretaps, and to ensure that they are non-circumventable, the whole stack is protected, down to signed bootloader and firmware with checks done in hardware. Needless to say, FOSS is also banned.

    2. Re:Time for an A.R.M.? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well this news is very depressing, it shows that when the singularity comes (the ability to REALLY control matter at the atomic level)* the potential for abuse may overwhelm the benefits.

      Yeah. Not the first time

    3. Re:Time for an A.R.M.? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "when the singularity comes (the ability to REALLY control matter at the atomic level)"

      That thing inside the parenthesis is called "nanotechnology". The singularity is something different. Both concepts may be related, but as we don't know the implementation details, we can't know how they relate to each other.

      Now, you needed this research to discover that nanotechnology could have bad effects? Have you been living under a rock?

  50. Alert the Vendor by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously the responsible thing to do is to give the vendor time to fix the vulnerability. I propose the researcher submit his findings to God and wait 5-7 days for a response before full disclosure.

    1. Re:Alert the Vendor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear Humanity,

      I gave you a machine that could execute arbitrary code. If your users want to run rm -rf / it's your problem, not mine. Either educate them or change the root password, and stop complaining for a "bug" fix all the time.

      Or, if you really can't deal with it, I guess you could wait for Version 2.0, in which all the major problems will be fixed. But I must warn you that no man knows the day or the hour of the release of Version 2.0.

      Sincerely,

      God

    2. Re:Alert the Vendor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God's auto-update service is terrible. It literally takes generations to install!

    3. Re:Alert the Vendor by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Youre a dupe. God would have had UID 0.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:Alert the Vendor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS: Version 2 might not have full backward compatibility with existing code.

  51. I'd Say No by RobinEggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know half of you are screaming at your monitors that "security through obscurity is no security at all", but security in biological information is not like that of computer code and hardware.

    It all comes down the the breadth and transparency of the ecosystem, in my layman's opinion. It's entirely plausible with, for example, Adobe software running on Windows operating systems to say that if White Hat A found it then certainly Grey Hat B and Mustache Twirling Russian Mafioso Black Hat C will find it or have already found and exploited it. Those are specific, limited, and completely knowable ecosystems invented entirely by humans, however. Of course someone else will find it; the universe in which "it" lives isn't terribly large, when you really look at the situation.

    Biology, on the other hand, is much bigger and much more mysterious; we're far stupider in biology than in any other science. We certainly didn't invent, do not control, and do not understand the ecosystems involved. You know far less from the sentence "I found five mutations that transform a particular H5N1 into a global killer." than you do from the sentence "I found a stack overflow hack in Acrobat which lets me read any pdf the target machine opens."

    In short, security through obscurity actually gets you a very long way in biological research. Not to mention that creating a virus is a lot faster than creating the vaccine; perhaps a substance of which a single vial released in downtown Detroit could kill half the humans on Earth long before the antidote was invented and adequately synthesized isn't the place to object on principle some deliberate obscurity.

    Seriously, look at the way flu vaccines are prepared. Maybe people should argue for the development of a faster way of inventing and growing vaccine (that is to say, faster than trial-and-error monkey testing followed by incubation in chicken eggs) before they request that blueprints for a killer flu become public information.

    1. Re:I'd Say No by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Biology, on the other hand, is much bigger and much more mysterious; we're far stupider in biology than in any other science. We certainly didn't invent, do not control, and do not understand the ecosystems involved. You know far less from the sentence "I found five mutations that transform a particular H5N1 into a global killer." than you do from the sentence "I found a stack overflow hack in Acrobat which lets me read any pdf the target machine opens."
       

      So basically you're saying "we know so little therefore let's keep knowledge secret". Makes sense.

      Seriously, look at the way flu vaccines are prepared. Maybe people should argue for the development of a faster way of inventing and growing vaccine (that is to say, faster than trial-and-error monkey testing followed by incubation in chicken eggs) before they request that blueprints for a killer flu become public information.

      And now it's not public. And who watches the watchers? By informing *us* about the potential danger all of us can do something. Scientists can use the information to understand better how our body works and how we can counter the threat. Investors can sense the interest in developing a countermeasure and put money in it. And everyone will keep an eye on the government which is by nature quite likely to be tempted by the evil it could done using said virus. We are the watchers and we gain our deserved power by knowing better.

      Even if the worst-case situation should come, I'd die a little bit more comforted knowing my killer. I don't want to die like an ignorant animal.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:I'd Say No by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "So basically you're saying "we know so little therefore let's keep knowledge secret". Makes sense."

      Yes. When we may know enough to cause Extinction Level Event, but don't know enough to stop said event fast enough, keeping knowledge secret is a very very very very very very very good idea.

    3. Re:I'd Say No by cowtamer · · Score: 1

      "So basically you're saying "we know so little therefore let's keep knowledge secret". Makes sense."

      Yes. When we may know enough to cause Extinction Level Event, but don't know enough to stop said event fast enough, keeping knowledge secret is a very very very very very very very good idea.

      Agreed! I'm for releasing every software bug out there, but the worst case scenario is FAR better with software than with Biology. I'm not sure why we're even debating this -- and Slashdot contains the _smart_ people of the Internet. I'd hate to see where the stupid people hang out...

    4. Re:I'd Say No by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You should take a look at how complex the flu virus is.

    5. Re:I'd Say No by geoskd · · Score: 1

      I know half of you are screaming at your monitors that "security through obscurity is no security at all"

      And some of us are quietly thinking that security through obscurity is one of the best tools in a security arsenal. By itself, it is not all that good, but coupled with other strong security measures, security through obscurity is the most effective security there is. The trouble is that obscurity is not directly within the control of the security professional, and cannot stand alone.

      That which is never assaulted is never breached, everything else is a holding action.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    6. Re:I'd Say No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downtown Detroit is pretty much uninhabited these days, bub. I won't speculate about whether such a release could raise property values there, though.

    7. Re:I'd Say No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Detroit it could only raise property values.

  52. Serial Passage by Guppy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This news has been bouncing around the biology world for a few days now. To add some perspective, the "super flu" was created via the technique known as Serial Passage, developed by Louis Pasteur. Yup, that Louis Pasteur. All you really need is a sufficiently large colony of ferrets, a source stock of H5N1, and some time -- there is not going to be any secret Atomic-Bomb recipe in the paper, the virus does the hard work itself, via evolution.

    Oh, and by the way... At one of the labs I used to work at, my fellow researchers once were chatting about what the various stereotypes for their colleagues were. I learned that the virologist stereotype among the other researchers was "a little bit crazy". Nightnight.

    1. Re:Serial Passage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when creating a link to Louis Pasteur did you have to link to FUCKING TV TROPES OF ALL PLACES ????

  53. DRACO to the rescue by c0y · · Score: 2
    1. Re:DRACO to the rescue by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for the commercialization of that one.

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Everyone is in favor of saving Hitler's brain... by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, oooh, suddenly you've gone too far!

  56. Same old Hollywood rehash by AgNO3 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I saw this movie already when it was Called "12 Monkeys."

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  57. Point of history: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was a bit more than the roads. Many of those "barbarians" that conquered Rome were themselves former Roman soldiers.

    Alaric was just one of many of them.

    1. Re:Point of history: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and to add to that, Rome wasn't so much conquered as it was abandoned decades earlier.

  58. The Stand by mprindle · · Score: 1

    Until it reaches the level of deadliness of the bug in Steven King's The Stand then I'm not worried. :)

    1. Re:The Stand by Turnpike+Lad · · Score: 1

      I guess it's bad form to request spoiler warnings on decades-old books, but I happen to be currently halfway through the Stand and now will not be able to enjoy the ending quite so much. Oh well..

  59. Someone once said... by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 0

    Scientists are the dumbest smart people I know... Enough said.

  60. Gives a whole new meaning ... by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

    ... to the phrase "zero day vulnerability". :-)

  61. What if it CAN't be fixed? by junglebeast · · Score: 2

    The concept of publicizing security flaws makes some semblance of sense in the security world, but when it comes to viruses that could wipe out 50% of the world's population...because patches can be easily made and distributed rapidly over the internet.

    When it comes to vaccines, that is NOT the case. It could take years, decades, or possibly never to create a vaccine..or the only vaccines might be too expensive or difficult to distribute on the scale that is necessary.

    With a population of over 7 billion, not ALL rational people, not ALL happy people, I'm sure there are some individuals out there sick enough to want to destroy the human race. By reducing that barrier to entry to...perhaps...little more than the $20 it costs to purchase an online journal...it becomes an immediate death sentence for billions of people.

    So shut the f* up about your ultra forward thinking concept of sharing info on how to kill us all, you sadist.

  62. how many victims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fouchier’s genetically modified strain is extremely contagious and dangerous, killing about 50% of infected patients

    So humans were infected with his creature and half of them died? Or is this just another instance of pop science journalism at its best?

  63. Better check into the good doctors finances by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this dude has been buying a lot of abandoned mineshaft property recently......

  64. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Otter+Popinski · · Score: 1

    Until we're fitted with bio-mechanical replacements that give us near super-powers...

    I'm choosing to believe that was a M.A.N.T.I.S. reference.

  65. Release the paper! by makubesu · · Score: 1

    Or we'll release the virus!

  66. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Nonsense. There are things that won't kill you but will leave you weak like an infant, so that you suffer miserably until something else comes along and kills you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche was a moron.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  67. Hawking's one century prediction seems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather optimistic given this news. I give us 20 years, tops.

  68. Should it be created and then published? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. It should never have been created. Biological weapons cannot be contained. Antidotes cannot be trusted. Conventional weapons have an area of effect. Nuclear and chemical weapons as well (although things like weather can spread it, I'd argue to a finite degree).

    If you create biological weapons, should you release the recipe? Yeah, that's a freaking great idea, please email it to leaders of Al Qaeda, North Korea, Syria and Iran. Carbon copy the other UN members and general population. What a stupid question.

    My voluntary tax dollars towards finding a means to kill most all humans on Earth = $0.00

  69. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a question of how you define "strong". A more accurate saying would be, "What kills people but spares those with certain characteristics, increases the ratio of people with those characteristics in the general population." H5N1 kills the young and healthy, and spares the weak and elderly, just like the Spanish Flu:

    "Another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old. wiki).

    Increased mortality in young and healthy people is attributed to a stronger cytokine response from the immune system wiki:

    "It is believed that cytokine storms were responsible for many of the deaths during the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed a disproportionate number of young adults.[1] In this case, a healthy immune system may have been a liability rather than an asset. Preliminary research results from Hong Kong also indicated this as the probable reason for many deaths during the SARS epidemic in 2003.[8] Human deaths from the bird flu H5N1 usually involve cytokine storms as well."

  70. summary wrong by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Just pointing out the summary here is a bit incorrect. The summary indicates the virus is 50% lethal (I assume with no treatment) and likely can mutate to airborne contagion in humans. To kill 50% of the people on the planet:

    a) We would need 100% infection
    b) There would need to be no treatment of humans.

    That's not to say an 50% lethal flu isn't worth worrying about but the summary is exaggerating the concern.

    1. Re:summary wrong by semilemon · · Score: 1
      Anybody know what percentage of the population is infected by the flu each year? According to the article:

      Fouchier’s strain is as contagious as seasonal human influenza, which kills tens of thousands of people, just that, much more lethal.

      Assuming that this was released into the wild without some effective, easy to produce, and easy to administer vaccine already in place, I think this would be anything but an exaggerated concern. From my admittedly limited understanding of the subject, it would be like half of everyone who gets the flu this year dying.

      --
      Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
    2. Re:summary wrong by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There is usually a variety of flus. Also people would be much much more careful if there were a lethal flu going around. If we assume that something like 1m get a particular Flu strand in the US I'd doubt it goes as high as 50k. Then comes the treatment issue.

      Very very bad but not 1/2 the planet.

    3. Re:summary wrong by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect that isn't the only overwrought element here. In my, admittedly limited, search I have yet to find reputable sources confirming any but the barest of details in this story; let alone "Kill Half Humanity" (Wikipedia's already infected, care of rt.com.)

      The Canadian Press, which brings us the Winnipeg Free Press article, fails to provide anything real to back up its statements. I can't really follow it any more than looking up the organizations provided and looking for related news postings (of which I found none.) Subsequent searching leads me to a Gizmodo article (links provided for those who wish to follow my searches.) Of it, there are two meaningful citations (that is, not links to the about pages of the source in question.) Science Insider and a pdf announcement detailing the schedule of the September influenza conference in Malta, in which this announcement is quoted as having been made.

      The first thing I noticed within the pdf (aside from the garish design) is the absence of any announcement on GM influenza, (or Ron Fouchier, or his organization.) Admittedly, this hardly means this didn't occur; merely that this (what is essentially a flier) is not a meaningful source of information.

      As for the Science Insider, it provides few additional details, mostly regarding vaguely related discussions on the classification/pre-approval of these sorts of studies. The closest thing it provides to something interesting is a (Dutch language) greenlight for what is supposed to be Ron's project.

      Indeed, the Dutch link does concern GM influenza, and is an answer to a question on procedure for studying this sort of thing (of which they already apparently had a license to do.) It does not corroborate any of the stand out details of this article (how could it, considering it's from 2007.) Of minor note, there is no mention of ferrets; only standard embryonated [sic. Google Translation] chicken eggs.

      Color me skeptical, to say the least.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    4. Re:summary wrong by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Good research! OK so the exaggerations probably go back multiple levels.

    5. Re:summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppressed Research is Suppressed...

    6. Re:summary wrong by Olli_Niemitalo · · Score: 1

      A quote from The Influenza Times, 4th ESWI Influenza Conference 11-14 September 2011, Malta:

      A “stupid” experiment leads to a valuable result Fouchier and his team’s biggest discovery, however, was based on what he termed a “stupid” experiment. He and his team introduced mutations, under strict laboratory safety procedures, by reverse genetics into laboratory ferrets. They then collected a nasal wash from each infected ferret and inoculated another ferret after a few days. They repeated this process ten times. The result? H5N1 had been transmitted to three out of four ferrets. “This virus is airborne and as efficiently transmitted as the seasonal virus,” said Fouchier. His research team found that only 5 mutations, 3 by reverse genetics and 2 by repeated transmission, were enough to produce this result. “This is very bad news, indeed,” said Fouchier.

    7. Re:summary wrong by treeves · · Score: 1

      ..and they're basing the 50% lethality in humans on its lethality in (ferrets, rats, ??). Might not be correct?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  71. Half? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    If true, that sounds like a good way to thin down the human population.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Where is Dubya when we needs him?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dutch now have weapons of mass destruction. For real, no BS. Let's nuke Holland tomorrow! Go! Go! Go!

  74. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    I prefer "6 Million Dollar Man." That track suit - and his girlfriend...

  75. Not that big of a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It still isn't really easy, and the entities that could pull it off - even the "evil" ones - aren't going to do it. Why? Not because they aren't evil, but because it doesn't serve their purposes. The merely self-centered have no use for such a weapon, because it can't be controlled. It's like nukes, except once you push the button, random nukes start going off everywhere. There are a few people who would push the button, but not state, terrorist, or criminal actors.

  76. This is crap... by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The flu in question is highly responsive to modern flu anti-virals as well as "MODERN MEDICAL TREATMENTS". What made this flu so devastating in the first place was its ability to cause a life threatening immune responses in young healthy adults, ultimately damaging the lungs so badly that victims drowned in their own body fluids. That's why this particular flu devastated healthy 20-somethings when it first spread as a global pandemic.

    An outbreak today could easily be mitigated and seeing as the people most at risk would have viable medical treatments to prevent both spread and lethal complications this flu would be unable to produce the catastrophic effects it created in its first run through the human population.

    The real threat would be an outbreak in a place like Africa, where a large infected population could become a huge bio-reactor evolving the virus into a real monster that was both lethal and untreatable. So our best bet for world pandemics in general are to place special focus on developing nations and make certain they have the resources needed to stop outbreaks of both old and new diseases.

  77. Viral vaccine by ddt · · Score: 1

    In addition to giving a leg-up on traditional vaccines, publishing this research could also lead to development of a way to distribute contagious vaccines/cures. A cure that spreads itself would be a lot more effective than having to manually distribute one-off vaccines. It's not hard to imagine a virus that has the symptoms of a mild cold that helps us develop antibodies to fight off the much deadlier variant.

    1. Re:Viral vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's Murphey's Law

      So, I propose they release the information, but with hidden errors to throw off and slow down ....
      er, see point number 1.

      =======
      Time to re-read Oryx and Crake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx_and_Crake

      =======

      Historically, the survivors or epidemics, when they get over crying about their lost sister and father, would sometimes find that they now were rich. Family estates suddenly belonged to them, people in villages where 80% died out now had their choice of chateau or castle to move into....

      Course, the economy was trashed.

      Anonymous, not a coward. Well, yes, I don't want various entities filing away my impromptu rants! does that make me a coward? Or sane?

  78. Re:Peh. Patton Oswalt edition by mgabrysPDX · · Score: 1

    "We made cancer airborne and contagious - you're welcome - SCIENCE : all about coulda - not shoulda".

  79. 12 Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starling ....

  80. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it cripples us. People always forget about the cripples.

    That's because we more or less wiped out Polio with a program of mass vaccinations.
    Back then, if the anti-vaxxers were around in full force like they are now,
    we'd probably still have significant numbers of crippled adults and children to this day.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  81. In related news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In related news, Madagascar completely isolates itself from the world.

  82. Why make it easier for them? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Three words: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

    Not the same at all (did not have the potential to kill half the world), and indeed a long time ago in quite another state of common belief - the *fact* is that biological warfare / experimentation like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment simply would not be done by most governments.

    But, they might very well be done by unhinged nut jobs like Saddam Hussein, who did in fact use biological weapons against Kurds and others that he had issues with. Do you suppose that there is a chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be similarly unhinged?

    It's not far out of realistic speculation that folks "on a mission from god" - as most so-called "terrorists" are - would find this extremely attractive.

    Certainly we can not keep this knowledge from dedicated whack-jobs forever. But why make it easier for them?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Why make it easier for them? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting we "make it easier for them". The point was, paraphrased, "We can trust the US gov't." Tuskegee show otherwise.

    2. Re:Why make it easier for them? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The point was, paraphrased, "We can trust the US gov't." Tuskegee show otherwise.

      Apples and oranges.

      But even so, we don't live in the same times as that experiment. Such a thing could not be undertaken today.

      Inability to see this is simply paranoia.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Why make it easier for them? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      It should be noted, that the US were a major supplier of weapons technology to Saddam Hussein, including chemical weapons, so there isn't much of a difference between the devilized mercilless dictactor and the western democratic salesman. It reminds me of an old running joke - "Do you know how the USA knows that Saddam has WMDs? They kept the receipt."

    4. Re:Why make it easier for them? by metacell · · Score: 1

      But, they might very well be done by unhinged nut jobs like Saddam Hussein, who did in fact use biological weapons against Kurds and others that he had issues with.

      Biological? You mean chemical?

      I don't think Saddam Hussein was as unhinged as you believe. All countries use propaganda to diminish and vilify their enemies. If you live in the USA, a country which was at war with Iraq, everything you hear about Saddam is likely to be prejudice or propaganda.

      Saddam Hussein didn't want a war with the USA, so he disposed of his chemical weapons and allowed UN weapons inspectors inside his country. Iraq was in a pretty delicate situation, though - its military was very weak, and the surrounding countries were at a risk to invade if they knew exactly how weak it was. So Saddam had to convince the USA that he was no threat to them, while at the same time maintaining enough doubt and confusion to deter other Middle East countries from invasion. Given the position Saddam was in, his actions seem pretty rational.

      George Bush' actions seem much less rational - he seems to have decided on an invasion and was actively looking for excuses, even though the UN inspections made it very unlikely that Saddam had any WMDs left. The Bush administration accepted any intelligence reports which confirmed the course of action they had already decided upon, even though most of them were unreliable or outright forgeries (such as the one about yellow uranium cakes), and were dismissed by the US' allies, such as the British intelligence service.

      Saddam was a despicable dictator, but that doesn't make him irrational. He was secularised and at least made an attempt to modernise his country.
      George Bush was a democratically elected leader, but that doesn't make him rational. A large part of his motivations for invading Iraq were religious, and his religious motivations seem to have been pretty easily manipulated by his advisors.

    5. Re:Why make it easier for them? by metacell · · Score: 1

      How so?

      Are politicians and bureaucrats more morally upright today than back then? I highly doubt it.
      Is the press more free and able to expose irregularities in the government today than it was back then? I highly doubt it.
      Are there more effective checks and balances in effect on the government today? I highly doubt it.

      If someone had told me ten years ago that the USA would imprison and torture people indefinitely on the mere suspicion of terrorism(*), I wouldn't have believed it. And yet, it happened, and a lot of Americans seem to believe it's perfectly normal. I don't think the step is very far to performing experiments on humans "for the good of the nation", if the need should arise. If it's illegal, you can rationalise it simply by doing it on foreign soil, like with Guantanamo.

      (*) Or, in some cases, without any suspicion at all - some people were held and tortured at Guantanamo Bay not because they were suspected of any wrongdoing, but because the US military believed they could become useful informants.

  83. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    M.A.N.T.I.S. had so much potential....

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  84. Think Hitler not Al Qaeda. by elucido · · Score: 1

    Hitler would have loved to have a flu that could completely exterminate certain populations. And many of his followers would love to create a flu like this and distribute it to certain countries and populations.

    You're right it's dangerous and most nationalists wont want to use bioweapons but there are certain situations where it could and would be used even by nationalist governments.

    1. Re:Think Hitler not Al Qaeda. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There are two problems with your comparison. The first is that evidence suggests that Al Qaeda would be perfectly happy to exterminate the same populations that Hitler wished to exterminate (it is even its goal to exterminate several of them). The second is that Hitler would not have been interested in this virus because it would not have selectively targeted the populations he wished to exterminate. It would have also exterminated to the same degree the population that he wished to promulgate, especially considering that most of the populations he wished to exterminate were mixed in among the populations he wished to advance.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Think Hitler not Al Qaeda. by elucido · · Score: 1

      There are two problems with your comparison. The first is that evidence suggests that Al Qaeda would be perfectly happy to exterminate the same populations that Hitler wished to exterminate (it is even its goal to exterminate several of them). The second is that Hitler would not have been interested in this virus because it would not have selectively targeted the populations he wished to exterminate. It would have also exterminated to the same degree the population that he wished to promulgate, especially considering that most of the populations he wished to exterminate were mixed in among the populations he wished to advance.

      So Hitler would give the vaccine to the population he wanted to spare in advance and then spread the infection.

    3. Re:Think Hitler not Al Qaeda. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Hitler is often used as an example of the most ruthless dictator possible, but the fact is he didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Mustard gas had been deployed in World War I, and the effects had been so horrendous, no European nation dared to use it after that. I doubt Hitler would have used biological weapons if he'd had access to them. Of course, there are dictators who are a lot more unscrupulous than Hitler was, and for whom a new virus could be useful.

  85. Why won't someone think of the ferrets? by SnapShot · · Score: 1

    If this gets out the ferrets are doomed.

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  86. Required V quote by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded convictions and has no regard for the political process. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued regardless of its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the outcome of the elections. No one. But after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was the fear. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built to canonize their victims. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.

  87. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Not likely. People would quickly see the risk of Polio as being greater than the risk of the Vaccine. Ironically, we are now issuing vaccines to children that prevent them from getting a relatively mild disease that becomes far more severe and crippling when they become adults and the vaccine wears off. Specifically the Chicken Pox vaccine.

  88. Half? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which half?

  89. Only 2 options? by CityZen · · Score: 2

    It seems strange to argue about publish/no-publish as if those are the only 2 options.
    What about distributing information confidentially to labs that can work on fighting the disease?
    Sure, some would argue that that really amounts to "publish", given that nothing can be kept truly confidential.
    But in such cases (as with many), it's really about the timing. You want to maximize the time the "white hats" have the info and minimize the time that "black hats" can get to it easily. You want to provide the info to as many reliable "white hats" as you'll want to risk, since the larger the pool, the larger the chance of leaks.
    It really seems like an interesting optimization problem with multiple solutions, far beyond the original dilemma of publish/no-publish.

  90. Frank Herbert; The White Plague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idea's been done. Trained biochemist has wife and kids killed by terrorists (IRA), decides to create a plague to wipe out Ireland.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Plague

    You may recognize author from Dune, etc.

  91. Hype Check? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    Anyone else think this is probably being overhyped on a slow news day?

    Isn't the big problem with "killer viruses" that they actually kill their hosts? If you are dead its a lot harder to transmit a disease to someone else. Thus the spread of such a plague becomes self-limiting.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  92. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    "What kills people but spares those with certain characteristics, increases the ratio of people with those characteristics in the general population."

    True, but how the hell do you fit that onto a bumper sticker?

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  93. Peaceful viruses only! by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    No its ok we should allow all nations to have it. It's absurd to think that the US should be allowed to have it while other nations also in search of pandemic-capable lethal super flu viruses FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES ONLY* would be denied access.

    *we promise guys its only for peaceful purposes! plz plz lol kthx.
    --Iran

  94. heeeeed meeeee by dittbub · · Score: 1

    i keep telling everyone. whats going to end the world is a freak scientific accident!!

  95. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    Unless it cripples us. People always forget about the cripples.

    that's ok I think we have a vaccine against getting the cripples now too right??

  96. Re:curious... by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    about as well as old flu vaccinations do to protect against new strains of flu in the new year: not too well.

  97. FERRETS EVERYWHERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lab with INFECTED FERRETS right now.

    What happens if PETA breaks in and "liberates" the ferrets? Then the RAGE, I mean, H5N1 virus would be out there.

    Seriously, do you really want to infect a ferret, which is known for being mischievous, getting out of containers, escaping, and breeding?

    What happens if a researcher handling a ferret gets bit?

    How is this not just like 28 Days Later?

  98. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    "Another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old. wiki).

    I think you're jumping to conclusions here. The Old People have other latent resistances such as
    -2d6--"get off my lawn". An effective threat, likely to ward off any weaker viruses.
    -3d4--"when I was your age". Confuses virus into trying to remember the 1918 pandemic, which it was not around for.
    -1d12--alzheimers. Even if it infects the patient, (absent?)mind over matter is an effective strategy. You can't be sick unless you know you've got something.
    -2d10--complaining. No virus wants to have to put up with a senile complainer.
    -???

    Now IANAV but IMHO if I WERE I would stay the HELL AWAY from anyone with these kind of skills. As a virus, I would see no point in killing off the (theoretically) living half of me.

  99. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    Try this: Friedrich Nietzsche is a big dead idiot.

  100. gentlemen of SPECTRE, behold by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    snookivir!

  101. Captain Trips! by Cito · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we got us a case of Captain Trips - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stand#.22Captain_Trips.22

    Now we need to be on the lookout for Randal Flagg

    and get your Blue Oyster Cult playing in your headphones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYSWiPm7E0

  102. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by occupyhotelrooms · · Score: 1

    Whenever somebody says that, I ask "How about AIDS?"

    It weakens you, so something else can kill you. Many things do.

  103. Oh come on... by Taelron · · Score: 1

    Hollywood has already made this movie a hundred times...

  104. Sound like the syfy moive of the week by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The plot can just write it self.

  105. More people died then. Less die now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Influenza. Same ages. Proponents of your argument too often forget this simple fact or gloss over it like the extra deaths served some higher good. They don't. Do some companies make a lot of money off vaccines? Yes. But does that make the vaccine bad? No. To assume a vaccine is unnecessary because you don't like the people who are selling it to you is not naive, it's fucking stupid.

  106. Psst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you engineer a vaccine for your "side" alongside the virus.

  107. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

    Whatever doesn't kill us, can still really hurt...

  108. The Stand by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    At the beginning their is a TS Elliot quote. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper."

    This pretty much sounds like that.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  109. Information freedom reflects civility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information is a dangerous thing, but I believe history will bare out that the societies most willing to trust everyone with information freedom are the most egalitarian, humane and peaceful.
    Making a dirty nuclear bomb is a trivial thing, as is distributing a disease,
    There will never be the means to control such things without truly lobotomizing the populace, considering the comical beliefs of many people the lobotomy is already under way. I hope it makes people feel safer, but true equity, brother/sisterhood and freedom has the free passage of information at its heart.
    Inconvenient, but let it out... Information wants to be free.
    If you're not trying to oppress anyone, it's not a bad thing in the long term.

  110. Spirit Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that there was no such disease set and it was a fake story concocted by rubbish doctors to cover up not understanding how the spirit law kills people. I think the world needs more sophisticated medicine ...

    1. Re:Spirit Law by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, medicine is good business, but first you need to create a market for it.

  111. The Moral Virologist by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 2

    An interesting short story about the potential of genetic viral design in the hands of a fundamentalist:
    http://eidolon.net/?story=The%20Moral%20Virologist

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:The Moral Virologist by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, always the Christian fundamentalist as the bad guy in the story. There must be an inverse relationship in modern fiction between actual harm a group can cause how often they appear as an antagonist in fiction.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  112. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    What about Multiple Sclerosis...?

  113. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Madagascar already shut down its boarders

  114. Probably why we don't see by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    civilizations from other planets visiting us more often. They all eradicated themselves after reaching certain technological know how.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  115. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by formfeed · · Score: 1

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Nonsense. There are things that won't kill you but will leave you weak like an infant, so that you suffer miserably until something else comes along and kills you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche was a moron.

    Sticks and stones can break your bone. But calling Nietzsche a moron only makes him stronger.

  116. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats what i was thinking.

    If this new virus is really as deadly as said then i suppose it has something todo overstressing the immunesystem.

    Which is quite bad actually, but without a look at the paper all we can do is guess. I dont think research like this has to be published, the risk/benefit is more on the risk side.

  117. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We" are? Who are "you"? I've experience of a couple of countries and have not heard of routine vaccination for Chicken Pox. In fact, my sister-in-law had to fight tooth and nail to get the chicken pox vaccine for my niece because she was about to go on Methotrexate (an immunosuppressant) to treat her Juvenile Onset Idiopathic Arthritis.

    tl;dr : Citation Needed.

  118. Only half? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that the super virus scaremongering was supposed to hill 103% of the world population. Any less and it's just not scary.

  119. Define "terrorists"? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    You know? In my mind, a terrorist is someone who participates in the act of creating terror in whatever form. Terror, not merely a fear. That this research was even done is pretty terrifying. That this strain was actually created is even moreso.

    To me, this fits the definition of terrorism. I expect the US government to act in accordance with its own justifications for its past behavior. A bio-weapon of mass destruction has been created. If it weren't for the fact that it was done by "non-brown people" I suspect something would already have been done by now.

  120. They don't need to publish it... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... the simple fact that somebody else has already accomplished it ensures that it will be discovered elsewhere as well. The only thing they will gain by not publishing it now is a bit of time to research it before somebody else figures it out. Eventually, someone with nefarious intent will manufacture it.

    Historically, it's been shown that often simply knowing that something is possible ends up being the greatest hurdle to actually accomplishing it.

    So now, it is only a matter of time... the only question is will it be enough time for a treatment to have been discovered?

  121. Or North Korea, ironically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange that the little men named Kim would survive but that all healthy women named Kim would go extinct.

  122. Well, I think I'm ok! by Zaldarr · · Score: 1

    This is perhaps the one thing I enjoy about Australia's isolation - the whole northern hemisphere could blow up/get wiped out by a super-virus and we'd be alright just so long as we set up a naval blockade. We are the Madagascar of the Pacific!

    --
    I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
  123. The Scorpion and the Frog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A modified version of the flu isn't much use to the military, for the same reasons that bio-weapons in general aren't much use: they are unreliable in war, attack an overly-broad segment of the population, and liable to spread contagion amongst friend and foe alike. They aren't much use for terrorists either: the majority of terrorism is geo-political in nature ("we want our land", "we want a different government", "stop hurting our friends" etc.). Terrorists generally want to target specific sub-populations of the human species, whether that sub-population be defined by nationality, ethnicity, wealth etc. Weapons that attack everybody equally are not really useful for that purpose.

    Yeah, that's why we don't have stockpile of thermonuclear weapons that can overkill the planet several times over.

    A world kill switch is very useful to have: you use it by not using it, as long as everybody keeps you not extremely unhappy.

    That's why we make such great panic over countries and regimes who we wish to make very unhappy getting themselves such kill switches.

    And of course the terrorists would use them! When a person dies, to that person it is like the whole world is gone. Probably any suicide attacker has a mind that could probably release the scourge upon the Earth without a second thought. Willing to die is very close to willing to destroy the whole world.

  124. You mean un-Dutch? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "Finally! A disease sent from God to punish people for being Un-American."

    Err, the researcher is from the Netherlands. So I guess you mean punishing those who are un-Dutch? ;-)

  125. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Nonsense. There are things that won't kill you but will leave you weak like an infant, so that you suffer miserably until something else comes along and kills you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche was a moron.

    So was that Aesop character, talking crows and foxes! What a simpleton, whoever heard of such things.

  126. Why are they intentionally making superviruses? by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    Pardon my ignorance here, but why are they intentionally genetically modifying viruses to be so lethal? It is my (possibly misguided) understanding they're introducing things that wouldn't necessarily happen on their own as they're directing the virus to mutate in various ways. So the "research should be known so we can combat it if it happens naturally" seems a bit wonky as having the virus mutate naturally in this specific way seems unlikely.

    I'm not completely opposed to releasing the research, but I must ask why they were intentionally doing this at all?

    1. Re:Why are they intentionally making superviruses? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The question is: "Can the flu virus continue to be lethal after it mutated enough to survive on humans?"
      Now we know the answer.

  127. Jeez by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Now can somebody throw that nutcase and all of his research in a volcano or something :s

  128. Is this the paper? by Skylax · · Score: 1

    IANAV, but is this the paper they are talking about? At least it seems to be about the same subject: Multidrug Resistant 2009 A/H1N1 Influenza Clinical Isolate with a Neuraminidase I223R Mutation Retains Its Virulence and Transmissibility in Ferrets

  129. Re:What if it CAN't be fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a flu. We've been creating flu vaccines annually, for 30+ years. We've got all the infastructure for mass production in place, and just need to know the precise flu strain that's going around the world. In this case, we now have a headstart since we know the genome before it's entered the human population. So, we can with reasonable confidence predict that the vaccine can be mass produced within 3 months.

    Furthermore, with Tamiflu we can slow a flu epidemic while we're developing a vaccine. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for the usual annual flu pandemic since those arise in poor areas in Asia, and Tamiflu is too expensive to distribute there.

  130. All information isn't equal. by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    Dangerous = Hide it, is the idiots solution. Because if anything, information will want to get out, and to assume that this information is unique, or that it cannot be replicated, or that it is the only time anyone will come up with it is idiotic.

    On the other hand, recognizing any information that has more potential for harm, is a good thing. And there are intelligent ways to go about it. The military already classifies its information and enforces boundaries to some extent. This is just an example of it already being done in some form or another.

    Deciding who deserves to know is where it is tricky, but just assuming all information should be free and out there is actually not very responsible. Rather, getting the right information to the right people is what being responsible really entails.

    On the personal level, we should have some control over our own information, our identity, and what harms us. We should have that right, especially if the government already has that right (and uses it against us).

  131. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever puts Nietzsches words in a wrong context is a moron or a fascist manipulator.

  132. Mouse Pox Virus Created by CSIRO by Stonefish · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a couple of points related to this.
    1 You're not particularly good at assessing risk. Do the maths on people killed by disease and people killed by terrorists
    2 There is a history of the flu virus turning lethal. Spanish flu and earlier history of extremely deadly pandemics.
    3 This study demonstrates breeding a better pathogen using natural means using traits that already exist.
    4 Vaccines for flu type virus are very effective.
    5 Exposure to a similar flu virus or vaccine confers some immunity.
    6 Agents that boost the immune response to vaccines confer an even broader immunity

    The point is that government should be preparing broad spectum bird flu vaccines and allowing people to put their hands up to get them as the risk of this type of virus arising naturally is high. This study demonstrates this are fact.

    CSIRO, an Australian research organisation released research relating to mouse pox virus modifications that created a deadly virus precisely because it was hoped that it would lead to better treatments. They also surmised that governments around the world already knew about this but had kept it secret.
    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001755.html

    1. Re:Mouse Pox Virus Created by CSIRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a couple of points related to this.
      1 You're not particularly good at assessing risk. Do the maths on people killed by disease and people killed by terrorists
      2 There is a history of the flu virus turning lethal. Spanish flu and earlier history of extremely deadly pandemics.
      3 This study demonstrates breeding a better pathogen using natural means using traits that already exist.
      4 Vaccines for flu type virus are very effective.
      5 Exposure to a similar flu virus or vaccine confers some immunity.
      6 Agents that boost the immune response to vaccines confer an even broader immunity

      The point is that government should be preparing broad spectum bird flu vaccines and allowing people to put their hands up to get them as the risk of this type of virus arising naturally is high. This study demonstrates this are fact.

      CSIRO, an Australian research organisation released research relating to mouse pox virus modifications that created a deadly virus precisely because it was hoped that it would lead to better treatments. They also surmised that governments around the world already knew about this but had kept it secret.
      http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001755.html

      The problem is, the reason things are supercontagious are because it takes very, very little of the virus to cause the infection. Because of this, it would be very difficult to create a vaccine that wouldn't transmit the disease

    2. Re:Mouse Pox Virus Created by CSIRO by venril · · Score: 1

      CSIRO, an Australian research organisation released research relating to mouse pox virus modifications that created a deadly virus precisely because it was hoped that it would lead to better treatments. They also surmised that governments around the world already knew about this but had kept it secret. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001755.html

      Really? Re-read the linked futurepundit article and the following abstract. Per the FP article, a US group was hired by the US Gov to re-create the same mousepox virus to investigate defenses; the Aussies did it by accident...

      http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/rodents/abstracts/Abstract_Ylonen_2001_TREE_Rodent%20plagues,%20immunocontraception.pdf

      From the abstract:

      "Rodent plagues cause a major problem for agriculture in many temperate regions, and immunocontraception offers a new method to control fertility in these and other pest vertebrates. However, it is difficult to find an effective carrier for contraceptives for large numbers of pest animals in the field. In a new study, Jackson et al. manipulated the mousepox virus to boost the immune response in infected mice Mus musculus when testing the basis for controlling their fecundity rates. However, all infected mice (and half of recently immunized mice) died. Despite these unexpected and dramatic results of the engineering of mousepox virus, immunocontraception remains the most promising method for fertility control and management of pest vertebrates."

      According to this and every other story I've read, the extreme lethality (100% of un-vaccinated mice!!!, 50% of recently vaccinated) of the engineered mousepox caught them very much by surprise. And this Dutch yahoo is flarking around with amplifying a human flu virus's lethality? Because he can? What sort of security does the lab employ? Any at all? The bad old USSR is had factories tooled to manufacture weaponized bio agents by the ton and worked on smallpox. Smallpox is already pretty bad; how bad when amplified or engineered? How much of that agent still exists?

      OK, in the US, eco-nuts regularly break into labs with experimental animals and release them. Has this occurred in the Netherlands?

      ...Today, ALF has grown far beyond its British roots, becoming a significant international movement with an unknown number of members and supporters worldwide. ALF cells are or have been active in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain..--snip--.

      pg 41, Eco-Terrorism - Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements

      A heavy concentration of animal rights activity was located in the Scandinavian countries, with Sweden leading with 9.5% of all records in the database. Other countries represented in the database include Finland, Canada, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands.... --snip--,

      pg 82, Eco-Terrorism - Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements And then there's that sentiment that humans are a plague on the earth, the population of which ought to be thinned.

      "On 5 November, the upmarket Nightwaves on BBC Radio 3 aired a discussion about overpopulation between Dr Susan Blackmore (a neuroscientist) and Professor John Gray (of the London School of Economics). Dr Blackmore said the "fundamental problem" facing the planet today is that "there are too many people". Professor Gray agreed. Then Dr Blackmore declared: "For the planet's sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we're doomed." Read more:

  133. It only kills half ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only kills half the population? Why did they stop at half? They should have finished the job and made it kill everyone.

  134. The horse has already bolted by jandersen · · Score: 1

    The work was first presented at a conference dedicated to influenza that took place in September in Malta

    It looks like it is bit late to close the stable door now, anyway.

  135. Now a psyco like me can fullfil his dream- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now a psyco like me can fullfil his dream-

  136. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Actually, if the anti-vaxxers were around in full force then like they are now, they would probably have been lynched (or, at the very least, strapped down and vaccinated against their will).

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  137. mod parent up, please by dr2chase · · Score: 1

    informative, perhaps

  138. Web publish nuclear detonate buttons too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Publishing the recipe has all of the logic of putting actual nuclear detonation buttons on basic web pages with no security, just point on a Google map and click to detonate any nuke in the world.

    If the potential human cost is astronomical, measures should be in place to attempt human protection from the crazies among us. It would be very foolish to underestimate the risk.

  139. Anyone get the "Erasmus Connection" by sobolwolf · · Score: 1

    Erasmus was an independent and somewhat eccentric thinking machine that served under Omnius prior to and during the Butlerian Jihad. Erasmus took his name, and titular gender, from the ancient Earth scholar Desiderius Erasmus. His attempts to understand humanity typically came through experiments on enslaved humans of the Synchronized Worlds, which normally resulted in suffering, misery and death for the subjects. He would definitely be interested in this, although he did (will) make a more virulent virus at one point...

  140. The Stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've read about this. It ends with the nuking of Las Vegas.

  141. Bubonic Plague =/= Influenza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bubonic Plague is caused by a bacterium. Influenza is caused by a virus. Strong anti-biotics can save a Bubonic victim. Only God can save Influenza patients.

  142. 1%'s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn 1%'s ers, asking (paying buckets o' money) to be vaccinated first. What is the other 97.2% of the population to do?

  143. Just read the other research from his lab... by sugarmatic · · Score: 2

    The nature of this research may be fairly well indicated by the other papers he is connected to, and there is nothing particularly cutting edge about them. This isn't a criticism- it is a statement that the nature of this research is a) readily accessible by those who wish to pursue it, and b) publishing the recent research might merely be a less important follow-on to the past published work.

    To the commentator who brought up the Fermi paradox, this is exactly correct. If someone is sufficiently motivated, a disaster could have been wrought long ago; there is really nothing but undergraduate molecular and microbiology skills, moderate investments in equipment, and sheer sociopathy standing between them and 'success'. That this hasn't happened, despite its relative ease for the motivated group, leaves only a few rational conclusions possible: that this is harder than it looks (possible, but not probable), that the DHS is fantastically effective at detecting and stopping efforts in secrecy (laughable), or these "terrorists" we spend so much money and cultural capital on stopping simply don't exist (most likely).

  144. Re:What if it CAN't be fixed? by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    Tamiflu has not been shown to work at all in the prevention or reduction of flu symptoms for the large majority of adults. Some groups with identifiable immunodeficiencies or the elderly find modest, but significant, relief. We cannot slow an epidemic at all with Tamiflu or antivirals for the large majority of healthy adults.

  145. "This was a triumph!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.

    I'm reminded of Brad Pitt's character in "12 Monkeys".

    I'm also reminded of a scene from the "Dr. Who" television series during the Tom Baker years, in the "Genesis of the Daleks" story, in which the Doctor asks Davros, the creator of the Daleks, a question about a hypothetical virus that would kill every living thing in the universe:

    The Doctor : "Davros, if you had created a virus in your laboratory. Something contagious and infectious that killed on contact. A virus that would destroy all other forms of life... would you allow its use?"

    Davros : "It is an interesting conjecture."

    The Doctor : "Would you do it?"

    Davros : "The only living thing...the microscopic organism... reigning supreme... A fascinating idea."

    The Doctor : "But would you do it?"

    Davros : "Yes. Yes. To hold in my hand, a capsule that contained such power. To know that life and death on such a scale was my choice. To know that the tiny pressure on my thumb, enough to break the glass, would end everything. Yes. I would do it. That power would set me up above the gods. And through the Daleks I shall have that power!"

  146. Its a good question! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    One I was thinking of the other day. Suppose hypothetically that you accidentally discovered a new free energy source by yourself. Unfortunately for you, you also discover that it can be turned into the most destructive force known to man, with the ability to destroy the world. Now what do you do with the information? Who to you tell, who do you trust? Do you trust your own government?

  147. Universal vaccine by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    So with this type of threat, can we now spend the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine and eradicate the disease rather than continuously pump money into annual vaccines? This will immunize the populace against all variants, as well as this threat and many others derived from existing flu strains.

  148. Re:What if it CAN't be fixed? by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

    it really depends on how easily a determined terrorist could come to the same conclusions of the stufy. If the answer is "pretty possible"/"much doable" then sharing the info gives us the chance to have more people / resources in more countries working for a vaccine. If the answer is "not in his wildest wet dream" then yeah, restrict it.

  149. Madagascar by mmarcottulio · · Score: 1

    Madagascar has closed it's ports.

  150. They deliberately infected people by Marrow · · Score: 1

    In Guatemala. Thats way beyond "fail to treat".

    And it was communicable. The wives and children of the subjects were also infected by the diseases.

    1. Re:They deliberately infected people by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Re-read my post. It *WAS* inexcusable. You seem to think I'm endorsing it or something -- and that I suggest it wasn't communicable.

      What I'm saying as the two topics are so vastly different that to compare them here in this context isn't applicable.

  151. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

    And here I thought I was the only one clever enough to twist that saying into something sig-worthy. Well I guess the sig-worthy part is debatable.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  152. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you like some Marshmallows and Ging-ging-ginger Ale?

  153. I've thought about this question a lot by Marrow · · Score: 1

    I envision installations deep underneath the earth where the energy was produced. The people that maintain the system are given a "one way" trip to down to the installation. They are cut off, except from the other people like themselves in other installations around the earth. They know how it works, and can discuss it over the encrypted channels they share. Their social life is just with the other maintainers of the system. I guess they would monitor each other; let those above know when a new acolyte needed to start training.
    But the people above, some of whom are obviously crazy, will never learn how it works.
    Now here is the problem. If you figure it out, then someone else can figure it out. So its only a matter of time before the wrong person figures it out. There is no choice: colonize space.

    1. Re:I've thought about this question a lot by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I suppose having limitless energy might help in that regard also.

      Sort of reminds me of the movie Pandorum.

      Recorded Voice: You're all that's left of us. Good luck, God bless, and God's speed.

  154. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    What you are leaving out of your highly biased one sided statement is that chicken pox never leaves the body, is responsible for god knows how many problems later in life and is the principle cause of shingles in those who have immune system complications later. Leaving out the scarring and other damage the virus does to children. The Herpes virus that composes chicken pox is one of the most highly evolved human viruses. It's very effective at infecting and staying with the host for the remainder of their lives and it's unknown what the long term implications are for infection. In addition this leaves out the child that doesn't get it as a child and ends up getting the far more severe adult version.

  155. science isn't always evil :) by dciman · · Score: 1

    They didn't specifically modify the virus if I understand the article correctly. They simply passaged it many times through a ferret host. Selective pressure caused the mutations leading the to increased transmission ability. The virus's DNA was then sequenced to find the mutations. All of them were known mutations found in nature, but just not in the same viral genome until that point. That knowledge is important for scientists working on infectious disease.

    They didn't set out to introduce specific mutations in an attempt to make a super virus. While the result is somewhat similar, the means to the end are important here.
    An analogy would be a lab constructing a strain of S. aureus that is vancomycin and methicillin resistant, vs reporting the seqeuce of genes responsible for a natural isolate found to show that phenotype.

    Learning more about disease is the only way to prevent/treat it. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that everything will be OK just isn't going to cut it.

  156. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    No delay. It just fails in antecipating it.

  157. We don't have the technology for that by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    We are strugling to gather enough renewable power for our needs here on Earth. What makes you think we can start a space colonization program? Our best chance of getting into space is to reduce emphasis on (manned) space exploration, and focus more on basic science.

    We are living in a window where altough we are powerful enough to destroy a planet, we aren't powerful enough to colonize another one or space. That is bad, but investing in the wrong path won't get us out of here faster.

  158. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by syousef · · Score: 1

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Nonsense. There are things that won't kill you but will leave you weak like an infant, so that you suffer miserably until something else comes along and kills you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche was a moron.

    Sticks and stones can break your bone. But calling Nietzsche a moron only makes him stronger.

    He's already dead, so I can't make him stronger.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  159. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The chicken pox vaccine is a 'live' vaccine. So, whether you catch the disease naturally, or get vaccinated, you will have disease in your body. We absolutely know what happens later in life with the natural disease. Chicken pox is not new, nor a mystery. What we don't know is what happens later in life when you get the vaccine. Yes, shingles is caused by the chicken pox virus, but there is no data all to indicate that a chicken pox vaccine as a child will prevent shingles (an even milder disease). In fact, there is data indicating exactly the opposite, since the chicken pox vaccine has shown itself to NOT offer life long immunity.

    So, your suggestion is that because a small percentage of kids might not be immune naturally when they read adulthood, we should force all children into the same dangerous position? Or are you under the impression that adults cannot be vaccinated?

    The scarring that you whine about is less of a problem than acne. Since the vaccine multiplies the change of death or permanent injury by approximately 10x, it is highly unethical to use that as a rational.

    Since the release of the Chicken Pox vaccine, there has been a concerted and highly effective campaign to convince the US population that Chicken Pox is a deadly and debilitating disease on the scale of Polio. It simply isn't. As a child, it is on par with the an average flu combined with an acne breakout. As an adult it is ~10x worse.

    To keep things in perspective, a child that is allowed to play high school football is MORE likely to end up dead or with a life long than a child taken to a pox party. A child that is allowed to ride a school bus is only a little less likely to end up with a life long injury or death. A person that is given the chicken pox vaccine as a child is MORE likely to die of chicken pox than one who has not.

  160. title vs name by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    Elohim is a title, and translated means "The God", or "The True God". notice the definitive article.

    Yahweh or Jehovah (YHWH) is not a title - it is a name, and refers to the name of Elohim.

  161. Comment of the beast by dacarr · · Score: 1

    In this, I find it interesting that I found this at comment number 665, which if I'm not mistaken makes mine comment number 666. =D

    --
    This sig no verb.
  162. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will teach them damn kids to stay off the grass.......

  163. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Pope · · Score: 1

    Friedrich Nietzsche was a moron.

    The only morons are the ones who take metaphorical quotations literally.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  164. But..... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    Does it target fat people? Think about it, if terrorist want to use a genetically engineered virus, they would surely prefer a virus that targets people with the “fat” gene. After all, they are mostly in the USA and the UK. It is amazing that a gene like that does not exist in countries where people are starving to death like in some African countries. A virus that targets fat people is something that we should really be afraid of. A generic targeting virus is pointless for terrorists.

  165. All the Right Ingredients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see here,
    1) Use innocent sentient beings for torture and death without just cause -- check.
    2) Use unethical, careless methods and reasoning to disgrace science and technology -- check.
    3) Use findings from unethical, careless methods to develop a means of killing billions of people -- check.
    4) Publish findings to ensure that it actually happens -- ...um...check?

    This is either the most evil or the stupidest person ever to have walked the planet. The fact that we are already to this point shows how much the people at Erasmus MC care about performing ethical research. If we survive this and somehow biological science is still funded despite this ridiculous embarrassment, this example of perfectly terrible ethics should be taught to every grade school, middle school, high school, and college student who participates in any science class.

    The paper should be not only precluded from publication, but all authors on the submitted article should be legally prosecuted for their highly unethical, wasteful use of animals in this research context, which hopefully will not include humans soon. At the very least, these particular researchers should be encouraged to resign from their positions. If one would like to drop them a word or two, here is their website: http://www.virology.nl/index-influenza.htm and here is his e-mail address: r.fouchier@erasmusmc.nl and here is the head of their department: a.osterhaus@erasmusmc.nl

  166. 12 monkeys. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    This christmas in your bedroom...

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  167. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand, I'm opposed to censorship in general.

                On the other hand, I would have thought research on making a deadly disease significantly more virulent would have been prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 to begin with.

  168. Not for terrorist use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weaponizing a virus like this requires plenty or resources and knowledge, out of the reach of any small organization. But even medium size states have them. If they can improve efficiency of the biological agent and develop a vaccine to be applied to part of their own population they would have a very powerful dissuasion system which could lead to a new equilibrium of Mutually Assured Destruction.

  169. This time ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't RTFA because this is so contagious just thinking about it makes me feel sick .... but I believe it shoud be kept secret. I usually believe in the free flow of information but this is just too dangerous.

  170. Nukes vs Plutonium by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Actually, having terrorists try to build a nuclear weapon is far safer for America than having them take whatever plutonium they can get their hands on, grind it into dust and spread it in the headwaters of the Mississippi or Colorado rivers. Goodbye USA. Plutonium is a strong poison. The problem with bioweapons is: How do you inoculate your own people safely?

  171. Time to reread Greg Egan's Blood Sisters by cornelius1729 · · Score: 1

    It's a short story about the "Monte Carlo project" to randomly generate viruses. A pertinent quote:

    The theory also included the best containment facilites in the world, and five hundred and twenty people all sticking scrupulously to official procedure, day after day, month after month, without a moment of carelessness, laziness or forgetfulness. Apparently, nobody bothered to compute the probability of that.

    --
    1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3
  172. Winner: John Hammond Jurassic Park Award by NATP · · Score: 1

    For failing to recognize that "can do something" doesn't necessarily mean "should do something"

  173. Reality Check = Population Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Release it. This planet is overrun by a festering plague of monkeys and it's about time we put the warfarin baits out for the fuckers.

  174. Timely that I came across this today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0