Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

I think our 4T may have a significant biological component.

Imagine, for example, a flu epidemic breaking out in an area being ravaged by AIDS.

That might be a good thing on balance, as epidemics go. AIDS suffererers would no doubt succumb easier and in greater numbers to the bird flu than healthy people. Imagine a "superflu"-llike scenario that wiped out 99.9% of people with HIV but only, say, 1 to 5% of HIV-negative people. That could well lead quickly to the end of AIDS.

Except that the flu, at least pandemic strains, seem to kill by creating a cytokyn(sp?) storm, a sort of autoimmune response, that ravages the lungs. This explains why people in their 20's and 30's were killed at a higher rate than older and younger people in the 1918 pandemic. So, those with compromised immune systems may actually be less vulnerable to the bird flu.

That's possibly true... if the bird flu follows the 1918 example. However, wouldn't the immune systems of AIDS victims be far less likely to fight off the infection in the first place, before the virus gets a foothold in the body?

On the other hand, if the bird flu follows a hypothetical continuously-shifting-antigen model like the superflu in "The Stand", it may not matter much whether one has HIV or not. The difference may only be dying within twelve hours or twelve days... either way, dead is dead.

Not only that, but what about those who test HIV-positive, but never actually 'get sick' - but function as carriers, instead? And yes, there are a few people like that out there.

Indonesia suspects bird flu deaths

Bird flu is suspected in the deaths of three people in Indonesia, the country's health minister has said. If confirmed, the victims - a man and his two young daughters - would be Indonesia's first human fatalities from the disease . . .

Health Minister Siti Fadillah Supari said on Friday that the three victims - a 38-year-old man and his two young daughters - had lived in Tangerang on the outskirts of Jakarta . . . More than 300 people who have been in close contact with the family are being placed under surveillance. Ms Supari said she was concerned the three victims could have contracted the disease via human-to-human transmission, because they had no known contact with poultry.

But World Health Organization representative Georg Petersen said that in his experience, a more thorough investigation could turn up evidence to the contrary . . . So far humans have only contracted bird flu after coming into contact with infected animals. But the real fear is that the virus might develop into a form which can be transmitted from person to person, raising the possibility of a global pandemic.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ic/4684965.stm

Devoted to the Next Pandemic?

Quoting Steve Ryan:

"I have done an in-depth study of Irish history, and it's a gold mine of information on what happens when you lose a Crisis. In 1014 Brian Boru broke the power of the Vikings in Ireland. That was the last truly successful Crisis until 1917....

"The c. 1100 Crisis was confused, and there was no clear loser...."

From print out derived from paleo 4T site, Civil War Anomaly Sep 4 '98 post.

I inquired about the c. 1100 Crisis, and Steve Ryan replied:

"...this era of Irish history is maddeningly undocumented. In general, it appears (operating on very little data) that this was a standard internal Crisis that pitted faction against faction for the High Kingship (Ard Ri). I gather that the O'Briens lost the High Kingship, but that there was no fundamental shift in the course of Irish history...Does this mean that there was no Crisis? I don't think so....

"My notes say that there was a pestilence in 1095 that took away 25% of the population. My guess is that this would have taken a lot of passion out of the Crisis, and people to eschew radical shifts."

@

@

Well, Tim, between those last two items, you've just projected the complete wipeout of nearly half of the present global population. :shock:

Bright side - same as after the Black Death Pandemic's initial onset: the survivors would inherit a world in which the support infrastructure is still the same size as before, but needs only support half as many people as before. Individual Standards of Living would improve markedly as a result (for the survivors, and only on a material level), if only for a short time (unless the twin pandemics kept numbers at the new, lower levels, as in Europe for the remainder of the Middle Ages). However, the psychological damage suffered by the survivors could be as profound, and as durable, as was found in Europe during the late Middle Ages.

@

Here it comes, maybe: Mysterious disease spreads in China. Virgil, take heed.

a simple, dumb virus that is TOO deadly tends to incapacitate the host before it spread on toward too many other victims. in this way, less-virulent strains are selected for transmission. the more a virus has "legs," the less likely it will be to cut them off.

having said that, an intelligently designed (i.e., weaponized) virus batch that is programmed to "anticipate" the next step in the effort to control it might just keep going and going...

Better get a Hulda Clark Zapper and couple of bottles of Mesosilver. They claim they can kill virtually any micro-organism! :wink:

Oh, now, this is discouraging: flu viruses exchange genes in epidemic swapmeets to improve their potency. They're terrorists at the molecular level, operating where they could hurt us the most. We ought to start assigning Arabic names to them.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Oh, now, this is discouraging: flu viruses exchange genes in epidemic swapmeets to improve their potency. They're terrorists at the molecular level, operating where they could hurt us the most. We ought to start assigning Arabic names to them.

Sounds Lamarckian. :wink:

Naw, not Lamarckian, but I worry about those transposable elements.

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

plus, they and their interactions with RNA seem to influence not just genetics, but epigenetics, the science of whether or not the DNA code is turned "on" or "opened" or remains "off" or "closed."

a whole new way of thinking is beginning to challenge or at least question the "central dogma" of genetics, that the information flow of biochemistry is from DNA to RNA to protein. i.e.,

DNA --> mRNA --> protein

if DNA is not the sole or even primary origin of the information, ie., if the information flow is stored in more of a decentralized web (and it IS, by the way)

protein <---> DNA <---> mRNA <----> protein <----> small RNA <-->DNA etc

this will change how we view and model evolution. Some people are now saying openly that we have been DNA chauvanists in the 20th century and need to take a long, long look at RNA. i.e., RNA might be much more important than even DNA, they say.

No, it certainly isnt "Lararck," but it's way beyond what Darwin imagined, too.

viruses evolve as we know. the only effective way to deal with any pathogen, in the end, is to interfere with its evolution on a population ecology level. now...uh, exactly how do we do that??? your guess is as good as mine. obviously, if their "habitat" is a human being, you can't exactly destroy their fecund breeding grounds, ay.

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

This meme has been furiously debated among evolutionary biologists, and most of them have abandoned it. Selection does not occur at the level of the organism or the species; even Dawkins and Gould agreed on this. Gould, more or less, preferred the population as the crucial level of selection, while Dawkins prefers the gene, or at least genetic kin.

Transposons are not to be taken lightly, as Joseph Shapiro makes clear.

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

This meme has been furiously debated among evolutionary biologists, and most of them have abandoned it. Selection does not occur at the level of the organism or the species; even Dawkins and Gould agreed on this. Gould, more or less, preferred the population as the crucial level of selection, while Dawkins prefers the gene, or at least genetic kin.

Transposons are not to be taken lightly, as Joseph Shapiro makes clear.

--Croakmore

Mr. E,

I read the Shapiro article. It sounded like a roundabout support of Lamarck. Please advise.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

This meme has been furiously debated among evolutionary biologists, and most of them have abandoned it. Selection does not occur at the level of the organism or the species; even Dawkins and Gould agreed on this. Gould, more or less, preferred the population as the crucial level of selection, while Dawkins prefers the gene, or at least genetic kin.

--Croakmore

I never said that selection ONLY occurs at the level of the whole organism, whatever that means. It occurs at the level of the "phenotype," though, whatever that may be--whether it's as bizarre as an extra pair of limbs, a head growing out of the posterior (in my case), or simply another type of subtle resistance to pathogens because a certain class of molecule is shaped slightly differently, i.e., re: sickle cell.

In evolution, the bottom line is # of offspring who produce offspring. That is the currency of evolutionary "success."

However, selection is clearly more complicated than the at the level of the coding DNA sequence of a gene. Call in small RNAs, heat shock proteins, histones, non-nuclear DNA, mRNA editings and alternative splicings, and many many other players.

Transposons are indeed really cool. And we need to learn more about them. But they have been with us for maybe billions of years. IF they were that big of a problem, we wouldn't be here. Perhaps we're here BECAUSE of them, in part. I like to think so.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

This meme has been furiously debated among evolutionary biologists, and most of them have abandoned it. Selection does not occur at the level of the organism or the species; even Dawkins and Gould agreed on this. Gould, more or less, preferred the population as the crucial level of selection, while Dawkins prefers the gene, or at least genetic kin.

Transposons are not to be taken lightly, as Joseph Shapiro makes clear.

--Croakmore

Mr. E,

I read the Shapiro article. It sounded like a roundabout support of Lamarck. Please advise.

Shapiro is the first credible one I've read that supports a form of Lamarckism -- cell-directed evolution:

Evidence from a variety of systems indicates that transposable elements [genes] can interact in a molecularly plausible way with signal transduction networks, the key information processing entities in the cell.

Forget the Central Dogma; this trumps it, according to Shapiro. If he can show mechanisms, which he seems to do quite effectively, then I have to rethink my hard position of strict neo-Darwinism. Maybe even the door opens wider for ORP affectionados.

I might also add that Shapiro has not yet garnered the favor of most neo-Darwinians. I guess the jury is still out on this issue.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

i don't worry much about transposons. or their cousins, endogenous retroviruses. or retrotransposons. well, not much anyway.

they are what make evolution possible at the level of the whole organism or species level, because they can infect the germline on rare occasions and jump into the promoters of master genes that control developmental controls and body plan, such as the hox family and so on...

This meme has been furiously debated among evolutionary biologists, and most of them have abandoned it. Selection does not occur at the level of the organism or the species; even Dawkins and Gould agreed on this. Gould, more or less, preferred the population as the crucial level of selection, while Dawkins prefers the gene, or at least genetic kin.

Transposons are not to be taken lightly, as Joseph Shapiro makes clear.

--Croakmore

Mr. E,

I read the Shapiro article. It sounded like a roundabout support of Lamarck. Please advise.

Shapiro is the first credible one I've read that supports a form of Lamarckism -- cell-directed evolution:

Evidence from a variety of systems indicates that transposable elements [genes] can interact in a molecularly plausible way with signal transduction networks, the key information processing entities in the cell.

Forget the Central Dogma; this trumps it, according to Shapiro. If he can show mechanisms, which he seems to do quite effectively, then I have to rethink my hard position of strict neo-Darwinism. Maybe even the door opens wider for ORP affectionados.

I might also add that Shapiro has not yet garnered the favor of most neo-Darwinians. I guess the jury is still out on this issue.

--Croak

Well at any rate, it seems Shapiro's transposons are more well-founded than Sheldrake's morphic fields. :wink:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf...eut/index.html

Bird flu 'resistant to main drug'

Friday, September 30, 2005; Posted: 7:33 a.m. EDT (11:33 GMT)

HONG KONG, China (Reuters) -- A strain of the H5N1 bird flu virus that may unleash the next global flu pandemic is showing resistance to Tamiflu, the antiviral drug that countries around the world are now stockpiling to fend off the looming threat.

Experts in Hong Kong said on Friday that the human H5N1 strain which surfaced in northern Vietnam this year had proved to be resistant to Tamiflu, a powerful antiviral drug which goes by the generic name, oseltamivir.

They urged drug manufacturers to make more effective versions of Relenza, another antiviral that is also known to be effective in battling the much feared H5N1. Relenza is inhaled.

"There are now resistant H5N1 strains appearing, and we can't totally rely on one drug (Tamiflu)," William Chui, honorary associate professor with the department of pharmacology at the Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong, told Reuters.

Chui was referring to the Tamiflu-resistant strain of H5N1 in Vietnam. Chui also said general viral resistance to Tamiflu was growing in Japan, where doctors habitually prescribe the drug to fight the common influenza.

"Manufacturers should think about producing an injectable form of Relenza because resistance to Tamiflu has been seen in Japan and Vietnam. Also with injections, high doses can be given where necessary and onset time is a lot faster," Chui said.

Drugs that are administered intravenously can be better absorbed in patients who have stomach and acidity problems, another expert said.

"We don't have to worry about absorption, injections take drugs right in. But if the patient takes them orally, maybe some amounts won't be absorbed or some may be destroyed by stomach acids," said pharmacist Raymond Mak at Queen Mary Hospital.

Intravenous Relenza would also ensure faster onset, which would be critical in patients who are seriously ill.

"Orally taken drugs take three to four hours to reach maximum blood concentration and three to four hours is very critical in severe cases. But injectable Relenza takes only 30 minutes to reach maximum blood concentration, this is a huge difference," Chui said.

With an intravenous antiviral, doctors can also vary the doses.

While the H5N1 virus is now mostly passed directly from bird to human, health experts have warned that it is just a matter of time before it mutates into a form that is easily transmissible between people. When that happens, it may result in as many as 150 million human deaths.

Two reports in The Lancet medical journal this month said that resistance to anti-flu drugs was growing worldwide.

In places such as China, drug resistance exceeded 70 percent, suggesting that drugs like amantadine and rimantadine will probably no longer be effective for treatment or as a preventive in a pandemic outbreak of flu, the reports said.

Copyright 2005 Reuters.

as i said before, the key to managing infectious disease efficiently is interfering with their evolution.

one possible way to do this is with other microbes.

don't ask me for details. all i'm saying is that this is within the realm of possible.

Some hope here?

http://us.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/condit....ap/index.html

Researchers reconstruct 1918 virus
Scientists seek better understanding of bird flu

Wednesday, October 5, 2005; Posted: 9:03 p.m. EDT (01:03 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Scientists have made from scratch the Spanish flu virus that killed as many as 50 million people in 1918, the first time an infectious agent behind a historic pandemic has ever been reconstructed.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Some hope here?

http://us.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/condit....ap/index.html

Researchers reconstruct 1918 virus
Scientists seek better understanding of bird flu

Wednesday, October 5, 2005; Posted: 9:03 p.m. EDT (01:03 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Scientists have made from scratch the Spanish flu virus that killed as many as 50 million people in 1918, the first time an infectious agent behind a historic pandemic has ever been reconstructed.

This "made from scratch" assertion bothers me a little, because they didn't make the genes from scratch. They bought them from a mail-order catalog. And, furthermore, this is not the first time a pandemic virus has been "reconstructed." In 2002, scientists made a polio virus from mail-order genes.

--Croak