Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:36:27 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:23:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:31:23 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:09:31 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:45:36 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 11:41:16 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:10:57 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 06:45:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:56:54 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 03/08/14 19:23, fredbloggs wrote:
On Sunday, August 3, 2014 1:13:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Maybe they can save their lives.
They have saved their lives, we have expensive therapies not
available in Africa. They're both improving and will be fully
recovered soon.
The treatment in the USA is the same as the treatment in African
hospitals - intravenous fluids and try to make the patient comfortable.
Like many virus infections, there are no medical treatments involved -
you just treat the symptoms and help the patient's own immune system do
its job. So the survival rates for ebola patients in the USA are not
much higher than for African hospitals
We've never had a case in the USA.
(though of course they are less
likely to suffer secondary problems, such as getting something else due
to lack of sterilised equipment).
There are experimental treatments for ebola, such as blood transfusions
from ebola survivors (hopefully with some useful antibodies), but I
don't think they are being used in these cases.
Dr. Brantly got such a transfusion, in gratitude, from one of the patients he saved.
No, it was the woman who got the experimental treatment. Dr. Brantly
was offered the treatment but said that she was in worse shape so
needed it more.
Further developments:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/health/experimental-ebola-serum/index.html
Yes, I saw that after I had posted. Seems they're not telling
everyone what's happening, even here. People are pissed.
Not me!
You aren't all people and you don't live in Atlanta.
There are several labs in the US that are working on ebola. The serem that they
gave to those two doctors was made by a company in San Diego. Ebola is here.
Contagious people were *NOT* here before Sunday. That's the point. I
would trust a private company before the CDC. The CDC has proven
themselves to be incompetent. No surprise - government employees.
There will be real, non-isolated, wandering-around ebola carriers here sooner or
later, probably sooner. And the chances of you getting infected are minute. So
relax.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 6:50:29 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:56:47 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:45:31 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WorldNews/ebola-stricken-american-doctor-turn-worse/story?id=24791024
That story is old and inaccurate. Originally he wanted the female to get the serum because he seemed better off. Then his condition rapidly deteriorated and they gave him the serum first.
Yep. Thanks for the correction.
The news was just reporting that both had received two doses of the
serum. The first didn't do much but the second made a big difference
in both. Dr. Brandtly reportedly walked (with help) from the
ambulance into the hospital and she was now well enough to fly (should
be here tomorrow).
I'm not worried about transmission--you've pretty well got to touch someone
to get it--but for people who worry...the serum came from San Diego.
The two doctors worked in full hazmat gear. How did they get it?
There is a lot that's not being said, here.
So, they've got virus too. Maybe that Spanish flu professor in
Minnesota can get in the game and make a super-er influbola bug.
Sounds about par.
On 8/5/2014 9:18 PM, John Larkin wrote:
There will be real, non-isolated, wandering-around ebola carriers here
sooner or
later, probably sooner. And the chances of you getting infected are
minute. So
relax.
I'm not trying to make any comparisons and I'm not trying to raise any
alarms, but similar things have happened with other, much more common
diseases. There were cases of malaria reported in people from the area
around Dullas airport near DC who had never been outside the country.
I'm not sure if it was a guess or what, but they figured someone who had
just come from Africa was bitten by mosquito(s) which in turn infected
locals. Those are the only cases of home grown malaria I have ever
heard of and malaria is a *very* common disease in Africa.
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically to
evade human immune systems.
On 06/08/14 03:33, rickman wrote:
I'm not trying to make any comparisons and I'm not trying to raise any
alarms, but similar things have happened with other, much more common
diseases. There were cases of malaria reported in people from the area
around Dullas airport near DC who had never been outside the country.
I'm not sure if it was a guess or what, but they figured someone who had
just come from Africa was bitten by mosquito(s) which in turn infected
locals. Those are the only cases of home grown malaria I have ever
heard of and malaria is a *very* common disease in Africa.
There are regularly small local outbreaks like this in the USA, because
there are mosquitoes in the USA that are able to transmit malaria.
Since endemic malaria was eliminated in the USA the source of such local
outbreaks is always going to be an person who was infected outside the
country.
Ebola is a very different sort of disease, with very different ways of
spreading. I don't expect it to have a serious direct effect in any
western country - but I /do/ expect there will be indirect effects -
i.e., fear and panic from it.
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically to
evade human immune systems.
The only selection going on is that if a virus doesn't infect the test animal - a ferret, not a human - it doesn't get propagated. There's no human immune system involved, though they wouldn't be using ferrets if the ferret immune system was wildly different from the human immune system.
The selection going on is pretty much what happens in the wild - although the flu virus is a bird virus that can jump to pigs and humans, so it does live in a different environment. The virus has only one interest - to have as many offspring as possible. We get interested when the side effects of the infection kill a significant proportion of the humans infected. This is actually bad from the point of view of the virus, because it wants it's host to be active and spreading new virii for as long as possible
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of host cell may make some difference.
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude" differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 11:20:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:57:41 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Doubtless, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about,
namely the question of whether the CDC folks can find their collective
derrieres with two hands, a map, DNA sequencers, radar, etc.
Is this opinion coming from your reading of that sensationalistic Hotpants book?
"The Hot Zone" was published seven years before the anthrax attacks.
You don't know anything about the CDC and all the stuff they're tasked with GLOBALLY.
The real idiot here is whoever tasked the CDC to determine if the sample was "weaponized"- not really central to their expertise in disease control.
Cheers,
James Arthur
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 11:20:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:57:41 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Doubtless, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about,
namely the question of whether the CDC folks can find their collective
derrieres with two hands, a map, DNA sequencers, radar, etc.
Is this opinion coming from your reading of that sensationalistic Hotpants book?
"The Hot Zone" was published seven years before the anthrax attacks.
You don't know anything about the CDC and all the stuff they're tasked with GLOBALLY.
The real idiot here is whoever tasked the CDC to determine if the sample was "weaponized"- not really central to their expertise in disease control.
Cheers,
James Arthur
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:20:13 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've happened naturally..
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically to
evade human immune systems.
The only selection going on is that if a virus doesn't infect the test animal - a ferret, not a human - it doesn't get propagated. There's no human immune system involved, though they wouldn't be using ferrets if the ferret immune system was wildly different from the human immune system.
The effort was to create a more TRANSMISSIBLE virus, more LETHAL, and one that evades HUMAN immunity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-controversial-us-scientist-creates-deadly-new-flu-strain-for-pandemic-research-9577088.html
The selection going on is pretty much what happens in the wild - although the flu virus is a bird virus that can jump to pigs and humans, so it does live in a different environment. The virus has only one interest - to have as many offspring as possible. We get interested when the side effects of the infection kill a significant proportion of the humans infected. This is actually bad from the point of view of the virus, because it wants it's host to be active and spreading new virii for as long as possible
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of host cell may make some difference.
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude" differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
You're contradicting yourself.
If there's no difference in rate, there'd no need for the artificial selection to start with--it would already exist.
If there's no difference in rate, how was Kawaoka able to create exactly
what he wanted in just a few years, something nature hasn't yielded in a
century?
You correctly said earlier that the *natural* selection pressure is for less virulence over time, yet insist here a retrograde selection is no different
from the natural selection pressure. It isn't.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/1918flupandemic.htm
"It is impossible to predict with certainly, but the probability of the 1918 virus re-emerging from a natural source appears to be remote."
"Are current antivirals and vaccines effective against the 1918 virus?
Yes. Two types of antiviral drugs, rimantadine (Flumadine) and oseltamivir (Tamiflu), have been shown to be effective "
So, the CDC opines the Franken-strain was unlikely to emerge, and if it did we've got herd immunity and drugs that help.
She, positive it was luck, was dead-set on proving it. And the more she lost, the more certain she became, and the more determined to prove it.
On 2014-08-06 11:20, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4,
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've
happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science
fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically
to evade human immune systems.
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of host cell may make some difference..
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude" differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
You can considerably speed up virus mutations by infecting cells with multiple viruses. The new generation of virii easily incorporates bits of foreign NA, possibly picking up new talents in doing so. While in nature this happens only by chance, in the lab this can be arranged on purpose, and
with specific targets in mind. That's a far cry from random mutation.
On 2014-08-06 11:20, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4,
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've
happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science
fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically
to
evade human immune systems.
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection
mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going
on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random
mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on
offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it
has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information
introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of
virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of
host cell may make some difference.
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude"
differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and
under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
You can considerably speed up virus mutations by infecting
cells with multiple viruses. The new generation of virii
easily incorporates bits of foreign NA, possibly picking up
new talents in doing so. While in nature this happens only
by chance, in the lab this can be arranged on purpose, and
with specific targets in mind. That's a far cry from random
mutation.
Jeroen Belleman
All of them? GMAFB!
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 01:13:39 UTC+10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2014-08-06 11:20, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4,
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've
happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science
fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically
to evade human immune systems.
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of host cell may make some difference.
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude" differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
You can considerably speed up virus mutations by infecting cells with multiple viruses. The new generation of virii easily incorporates bits of foreign NA, possibly picking up new talents in doing so. While in nature this happens only by chance, in the lab this can be arranged on purpose, and
with specific targets in mind. That's a far cry from random mutation.
Perhaps. Multiple viruses hitting the cell all at once are all going to be trying to take over the cells replicating machinery at the same time. The likeliest outcome is a very dead cell and no new viruses. You may be lucky and get a surviving hybrid, but you'd have to be very lucky to get one that could take over another cell and produce copies of itself.
Producing one that was as viable as the flu virus would be an even longer stretch.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 14:46:45 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:03:38 PM UTC-4,
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're arguing that hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution is no worse than what would've
happened naturally.
That's idiotic.
There's no such thing as "hyper-accelerated artificially-directed
human-targeted viral evolution"- you're reading too much science
fiction.
They're selectively breeding virii for virulence, and specifically
to
evade human immune systems.
How on earth is that not an orders-of-magnitude faster selection
mechanism compared to random chance?
Where's the difference between what's going on lab and what's going
on in the wild? The mutations are being produced by the same random
mechanism, and the only difference is in the selection of hosts on
offer.
Admittedly, the actual mutations happen in the host cell, after it
has been infected by the virus, while the genetic information
introduced by the virus is being turned into a new generation of
virii the cell's hijacked replication machinery, so the choice of
host cell may make some difference.
Sadly for your credibility there are no "orders of magnitude"
differences on offer - that all comes from your over-active and
under-informed imagination.
James (Chicken Little) Arthur
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 1:30:41 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
All of them? GMAFB!
It's always you worthless people
You're talking in a mirror, Blobbs.
who are so in fear of their life...
You're a liar, but everyone knows that already.
On 06/08/14 00:38, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 6:50:29 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:56:47 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:45:31 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WorldNews/ebola-stricken-american-doctor-turn-worse/story?id=24791024
That story is old and inaccurate. Originally he wanted the female to get the serum because he seemed better off. Then his condition rapidly deteriorated and they gave him the serum first.
Yep. Thanks for the correction.
The news was just reporting that both had received two doses of the
serum. The first didn't do much but the second made a big difference
in both. Dr. Brandtly reportedly walked (with help) from the
ambulance into the hospital and she was now well enough to fly (should
be here tomorrow).
I'm not worried about transmission--you've pretty well got to touch someone
to get it--but for people who worry...the serum came from San Diego.
The two doctors worked in full hazmat gear. How did they get it?
There is a lot that's not being said, here.
Haven't you seen "Outbreak"? Even with full hazmat gear, accidents can
happen.
Actually, the ebola health care workers in Africa do not wear "full
hazmat gear" (as used in biolabs) - it would be impossible to work in in
that environment. They mostly wear masks, glasses, coveralls, gloves
and boots. The chances of ebola virus particles getting in somewhere
along the line (including the process of taking the cloths off at the
end of the shift) are small, but not negligible.
So basically they were unlucky - there is no need (at this stage) to
worry that there is some unknown transmission vector.
So, they've got virus too. Maybe that Spanish flu professor in
Minnesota can get in the game and make a super-er influbola bug.
Sounds about par.
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 1:30:41 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
All of them? GMAFB!
It's always you worthless people
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:27:13 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:17:53 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 1:30:41 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
All of them? GMAFB!
It's always you worthless people
You're talking in a mirror, Blobbs.
who are so in fear of their life...
You're a liar, but everyone knows that already.
What everyone knows is you're a simple minded pest of no value whatsoever...
You aren't smart enough to stop digging.
.... In fact one of the coping mechanisms of the cell is on
detecting an infection, to commit suicide before the virus has much
chance to replicate.
not do any more damage to the cell than would otherwise happen and the two viruses have little impact on one another other than competing for the same machinery. So it is very easy for two virus types to share NAOn 8/6/2014 12:30 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 7 August 2014 01:13:39 UTC+10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
You can considerably speed up virus mutations by infecting cells with multiple viruses. The new generation of virii easily incorporates bits of foreign NA, possibly picking up new talents in doing so. While in nature this happens only by chance, in the lab this can be arranged on purpose, and with specific targets in mind. That's a far cry from random mutation.
Perhaps. Multiple viruses hitting the cell all at once are all going to be trying to take over the cells replicating machinery at the same time. The likeliest outcome is a very dead cell and no new viruses. You may be lucky and get a surviving hybrid, but you'd have to be very lucky to get one that could take over another cell and produce copies of itself.
Your idea of how a cell works and how viruses work is a bit simplistic.... or maybe I should say a bit too involved. The inter-cellular machinery that produces protein and copies NA is rather straight forward. You just shove your blueprints into the replicator and they get made. The final assembly of viruses is often automatic, for example they found that adding tobacco mosaic virus RNA with its protein coat results in the spontaneous creation of complete viruses.
Don't think this has to be a very efficient process either. Viruses are r-selected which means they will reproduce as many offspring as possible without much regard to the quality. Viruses use the machinery of a cell to produce many more viruses and disperse these viruses by rupturing the cell spew out the contents which includes many partially assembled
viruses and a lot of virus components. The cell pretty much always dies that I know of. In fact one of the coping mechanisms of the cell is on detecting an infection, to commit suicide before the virus has much chance to replicate.
The upshot of all this is that infection with multiple virus types does
Producing one that was as viable as the flu virus would be an even longer stretch.
And that is what evolution is all about. It can take millions and even billions of rolls of the dice to get a combination that is an
improvement, but the viruses have lots of time and replicate very, very quickly in huge numbers.