Prev
Next

Creating death in a test tube

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

27 Dec 05:55am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

51

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

73

Filed under: Bird Flu, Disease, Health, Influenza, Science

100 comments

It’s the stuff of an edge-of-your-seat thriller: Scientists develop a fatal flu virus, one that could decimate humanity. What happens next?
Bit of sage butter and straight on the Weber with you. Pic: AP

Well, the fatal virus, a mutated strain of bird flu that can pass between other animals, is here. Scientists have created it in a lab - and it’s not clear what will happen next. Some scientists want to stop all the details of the research from being published for fear of bioterrorism, while others say ‘censorship’ will obstruct the search for a vaccine.

The very existence of the fatal virus, though, is a dramatic development. It echoes the plot of myriad horror flicks where the heroes battle an invisible villain amid gruesome illness and an increasing body count.

Hollywood is guilty of many shiny, pretty annoyances. Alvin and the Chipmunks. Tom Cruise. Twilight.

One of its other sins is crying wolf and turning good science to bad. Some of the best sci-fi and horror blockbusters take reality, and blow it into something monstrous. The Day After Tomorrow is a good example – with a core of real climate change science, exaggerated to fit the big screen.

Contagion, the latest of the epidemic thriller flicks about the spread of a deadly disease, is another good example. A possible scenario distorted so that, while you can watch it with suspended disbelief, when you walk blinking into real life the story acquires a sense of unreality.

The Day After Tomorrow, with its wild scenarios, is often used by people to dismiss climate change as some half-baked fantasy in which that Donnie Darko guy is the emo-hero. Contagion allows people to put the apocalyptic flu scenario in the same basket as Shaun of the Dead. In a sense, they are alarmist fantasies.

Contagion is just the latest in the genre – mutant-virus-infects-the-world flicks have been around for years; pandemics provide the perfect global thriller a filmmaker can use as a backdrop for the intensely personal story of the protagonists.

All the best thrillers allow you to believe, even if it’s just for two hours and ten minutes. Contagion is believable because it’s based on a credible scenario – a scenario that edged a little closer to reality with this news that scientists in Holland have created the mutant killer flu virus.

They genetically altered a strain of bird flu so it can pass between ferrets – ferrets have a similar response to humans to the virus.

Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center says they “mutated the hell out of H5N1” and with just five mutations created a version of the virus that can spread through air. The ease with which they created this dangerous new form, he said, “seemed to be very bad news”.

Bird flu – H5N1 avian influenza – is frighteningly fatal, killing 60 per cent of those it infects. Luckily it can’t pass between humans, only from bird to human, so it has only killed 350 people. So far.

Scientific American author Katherine Harmon describes the prospect of a bird flu pandemic, if it becomes able to pass from human to human, as being at the top of a worst-case scenario list.

Right now, journals Science and Nature are trying to decide whether to publish the details of the Dutch findings. It’s an important breakthrough and could help in the battle against a flu pandemic. But publishing the details could also help terrorists weaponise the virus.

There’s an obvious answer; publish what you can without giving the game away, and release the rest to a limited number of trusted researchers. That’s a side plot.

The main storyline is this incredibly dangerous virus and our inability to fight it. The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity chair Paul Keim said it was scarier than anthrax.

“I can’t think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one,” he said.

Even if bioterrorists or rogue nations never glean the secrets of making the virus, the possibility remains that bird flu will mutate in the real world, and we could face a Hollywood-sized pandemic.

One of the problems we might then face is that Hollywood has cried wolf. If human-to-human transmission happens outside the control of the lab, the world could be in real trouble, but people may be complacent because that sort of thing only happens to Jude Law. 

This possibility is increased because, in Australia at least, many people think the Government overreacted to the swine flu. More crying wolf.

Remember the swine flu? In Australia, schools were closed, experts predicted thousands could die. But now swine flu is part of life, of the usual flu cycle. Its effects were relatively mild, when we’d been sold the apocalypse.

So everything’s OK, right?

Well, not really. Swine flu showed we cannot stop a pandemic. Masks and airport temperature scanners and school closures may have slowed the spread, but they didn’t stop it.

And it is still a very real risk that, probably somewhere in the Third World where birds live closely with humans, bird flu will mutate. And then anything could happen. I have spoken to dozens of public health experts about the possibility of human-to-human transmission of the flu virus. And most of them made me want to stockpile Spam.

I’m not writing this to create panic, but to highlight the dangers of complacency, of dismissing the threat as the invention of alarmists. This is no movie. If H5N1 does mutate and spread among humans, we could be facing a very real, very dangerous contagion.

And most of the people who know what they are talking about say it’s a matter of when, not if.

@ToryShepherd

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
371There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
300Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

100 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:31am | 27/12/11

      Thinbk that’‘s scary? Technology keeps on improving. What two scientists can do in a lab today, two hundred can do in a lab tomorroiw. And a fair few of tghose scientists will belong to organisations with less than benevolent intent.

      Consider, for example, extreme environmentalists who believe the world would be better off if 90% of humans were gone. That such a reduction is the only way to save the planet ...

      Then consider that the day after tomorriow, undergraduate students will be able to create these viruses in their bathrooms.

      Reply

    • philip says:

      09:03am | 27/12/11

      Im no enviromentalist but we could do we a population decline of that magnitude there is only so much food to go around anyway not only that but alot of animals on the brink might just recover in the countries that are overpopulated ie the third world but personally I would also suggest the weak hippies should go first you know the old adage of putting your money where your mouth is.

      and tory have you ever either read the first part of the stand or seen the intro to the mini series if anything something like this new version of the bird flu is more likely to be released by accident and there will be survivors anyway because nature does select who will live and who will Die etc.

    • L. says:

      09:20am | 27/12/11

      “Consider, for example, extreme environmentalists who believe the world would be better off if 90% of humans were gone. That such a reduction is the only way to save the planet ..”

      Erick, that’s the plot from the Bruce Willis movie, “The twevle Monkeys”.

    • John says:

      09:36am | 27/12/11

      Erick that’s interesting.

      It’s seem like the animals lovers prefer animals to humans.
      Its seems like the plant lovers prefer plants to humans.
      Its seem like feminists prefers women to men. These ideology’s seems to drive by to hate humanity or men.

      These personality types tend to withdraw from society, eg an animal lover will interact less with humans, sub-unconscious’s despises humanity, creates an alternative replacement with an animal to fill the void.

    • Erick says:

      09:48am | 27/12/11

      @L. - It’s also the plot from the Tom Clancy book, “Rainbow Six”. Tom Clancy, by the way, wrote a novel in the 1990s that included a terrorist crashing an airliner into the White House.

      Just because fiction writers can see a possible disaster scenario, that’s no reason to dismiss the possibility. In fact, if the idea has occurred to a novelist, it’s quite likely some terrorist has thought of it too.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:18am | 27/12/11

      When you consider that humanity is responsible for thousands of animal and plant species extinction as well as alteration of the climate on a global scale then maybe the environmentalists have motivation. Humans have no more value than any other animal species. At least most other animal species act within their own balanced ecosystem

    • Erick says:

      11:20am | 27/12/11

      @ShanefromMelbourne - There’s a lot of room for debate there.

      For one thing, humans so far have acted exactly like every other species in the history of the planet - reproducing and spreading to fill every available niche. The idea that humans are unique in doing this is rubbish. Almost every species does it. We just haven’t reached the limits of our niche yet.

      But wait, there’s more! Humans do have one unique characteristic - once we become wealthy and secure, we stop reproducing. Almost every developed nation has a below-replacement birth rate. Unlike any other species (that I know of), humans, when they’re living in very happy circumstances, decrease their numbers. Without anyone telling them to.

      That isn’t all of it, but it’s just one observation. The idea that our species is somehow an aberration, a disease, or a cancer on life, is just bullshit. Nature knows what it’s doing. Nature created us for a purpose. And we are fulfilling that purpose, whether we know it or not.

    • mick says:

      12:49pm | 27/12/11

      You have got a handle on this Erick. 

      It annoys the heck out of me when I read the head in the sand posts which paint humans as being different.  Humans may be special in the eyes of God but we are just another animal species to nature.  Despite having intelligence we appear to be unable to determine what is an acceptable number of us on the planet.  Throw in money, greed and an expansionist economic model and there you go.  Come on in spinner!!

      I don’t know about reducing population by 90% but it sure would be good that if as a race we did not decimate the planet, destroy most other species, pollute all that we touch and degrade the place we call home.  Yes, sounds like a plague to me.  If there were real intelligence rather than greed then we’d stop it.  We won’t.

      Lastly, why do we need to have another 3 billion of us on the planet in another 40 years time?  Is there a rational answer to this other than money, money, money.  I think not.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:23pm | 27/12/11

      @Erick- There are two major defences of man’s behavior towards the planet. The first is the traditional Judeo-Christian / Capitalist view that man has been given dominion by God over the planet and can do what they like, regardless of the consequences. The second is a naturalist view that man is the ultimate predator at the top of the food chain and thus can do what he likes. Neither is a morally valid defence against mass extinction of animal and plant species.
      As for the argument that as humans become secure and wealthy they slow the reproduction rate, their environmental impact increases as their consumption of resources and energy increases. Western societies generally have a greater ecological impact than undeveloped nations. God help us all when China and India develop a large middle class.

    • Bruno says:

      04:55pm | 27/12/11

      philip - no you are not an environmentalist, you are terrorist. Are you suggesting we wipe out 90% of the populations of third world countries. I suggest you should go first you know the old adage of putting your money where your mouth is. Thank God you are an anonymous blogger. The mass murdering tyrants of history would have nothing on you. 

      Shane and Mick - humans have the capacity to bring back extinct animals, to one day put summer and winter back in their rightful seasons, to stop asteroids from wiping out your beloved animals, to cure diseases in both humans and animals, to artificially produce seafood and watermelons and mangoes, what can a ostrich do, apart from laying those deliciously huge omelletes. Personally I do not want to wait a millions years for zebras to learn maths. Btw this coming from someone who stops his car when a snake is crossing the road, except for brown snakes I kill those, who catches spiders and lets them go outside, except for redbacks and funnelwebs, I make their guts comes out of their backsides, who has found and taken an injured turtle, some type of 40cm lizard, an echidna, and even once a pidgeon, yes those air rats, to a vet.

    • L. says:

      05:39pm | 27/12/11

      @Erick
      “Just because fiction writers can see a possible disaster scenario, that’s no reason to dismiss the possibility. “

      And that is the plot of the Robert Redford movie.. Three Days Of The Condor wink

    • Em says:

      06:56pm | 27/12/11

      I love folks like Philip who say that the world could do with a “population decline”.

      Ok, Philip, do be sure to push your wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters in the path of some bio-pandemic.  After all, the world could do with a population decline.

    • J says:

      11:22pm | 27/12/11

      @Bruno - just had a couple of comments regarding the things you asserted humans can do…

      “bring back extinct animals”
      No.
      “put summer and winter back in their rightful seasons”
      ??? No.
      “stop asteroids from wiping out your beloved animals”
      No, we do not have the means to stop an asteroid that would wipe out the planet’s species on impact. Try reading something by actual scientists, rather than whatever fiction you’ve seen in TV/movies. I presume you’re thinking of a nuclear weapon - that would just split the rock into lots of smaller pieces (which would now be radioactive, for some extra fun) which would still smash into the planet with a tremendous impact. The scariest thing? In the case of a rock like that… we almost certainly wouldn’t even know it was coming until it was far, far too late to do anything about it anyway (and worse again; the - now former - former worlds biggest and most advanced space program has decommissioned it’s launching craft). Have a nice nightmare.

    • Bruno says:

      08:30am | 28/12/11

      @J - one of the definitions of capacity: ‘Innate potential for growth, development’. No doubt 200 years ago you would have said, yeah right mechanical birds that can carry people

    • J says:

      09:12am | 28/12/11

      @Bruno - wait, so your comeback is that we can’t do those things…. yet? Hah. Are you serious?

      We also can’t turn invisible, travel faster than light (how about teleportation, for that matter?), assert mind control over other species, create matter from absolutely nothing, reverse the acceleration rate of the growth of the universe or withstand extreme temperatures. But don’t worry, we have the capacity for growth - it’s not that we can’t do those things… just that we can’t do them yet! After all, we have INFINITE potential.

      Actually, given that potential for growth is really all tied in to evolutionary process, isn’t it just as likely that some other species of animal could eventually become sentient and conquer these frontiers? Then THEY could be the saviours of the planet! Imagine that.

      Is that sledgehammer big enough to get the point across?

    • I, Claudia says:

      10:52am | 28/12/11

      John - you really think that there’s some conspiracy theory out there against men and humanity?

      REALLY?

    • Erick says:

      12:21pm | 28/12/11

      @J - It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know anything about human capabilities. I suggest you do some more reading.The whole Interwebs is here to help you learn!

    • Justin says:

      07:53pm | 28/12/11

      Now, a lot of you will not agree with my following words, but someone has to say it.  We are an over populated planet, and all nations are still pumping out babies.  We are by no means an endangered species, yet we have assumed the right to annihilate many species on Earth.  Now it is our turn, bring on population control as soon as possible, as the world population needs to be more than halved.  There, black and white.

    • Bruno says:

      08:12pm | 28/12/11

      @J - other beings on earth may become sentient? now whose been watching to many movies. yes it is possible that other species may become sentient, for e.g. humans may become extinct and in a million years zebras may have evolved to learn maths. Actually given the intellectual capacity of humans it is possible that zebras may learn maths earlier with our help, we have taught lions to jump through burning hoops after all.

      I’m not suggesting that the earth is a naturally happier place with humans on it. What I am saying is that, look, human beings, forget it. Clearly the slegdehammer did not work its obviously to heavy for you. Eat some meat. Maybe it was this mutant bird flu article that got us into this humans vs other species argument. For the record I’m all for preservation of species as a whole including the deadly ones that I mentioned above, as long as individually they don’t come sniffing around while I am camping with my family. I have forgiven magpies but the great white shark is not majestic it is a terrorist, although I am perceptive to the it is their natural environment and not ours argument. However evolution does suggest that we used to be fish. I really must sharpen my one paragraph comebacks. At the end of the day animals are where they should be, either in zoos, nature reserves, national parks or my tummy. For evidence on human capacity please read article titled Creating death in a test tube. Thanks, I just missed half of Miami Vice, what Entrapment is on. Hopefully I haven’t missed the scene where she sticks her backside in the air while trying to slide past the lasers.

    • J says:

      02:59pm | 29/12/11

      Oh dear. Erick & Bruno; that second post was almost entirely me taking the mickey (bar the first mini-paragraph). Hence the sledgehammer comment at the end.

      Annnnd now I’m roped into the debate itself, rather than pointing out an error in an argument I don’t disagree with. You have me all wrong. I’m certainly not among those advocating a population decrease or in any way a tree hugger or vegetarian (yuck)... and I’m upfront about the reason for my views - personal interest. I’m human, and other animals can keep up or suffer. I’ll try not to harm other species but I’m not going to go too far out of my way. I DON’T try to rationalise my views with things we just can’t do and don’t really have any legitimate cause to expect we will be able to do them relatively soon in the future.

      You potentially missed CZJ’s ass for this? Should I be flattered? Ah well, there’s always the DVD.

    • Mark says:

      08:55pm | 01/01/12

      Hate to see the death of 90% of the population. But if we continue to overpopulate the way we have, it may not be scientists who create the virus that could wipe us out but mother nature. All other species on Earth have at some stage have populated in large numbers and mother nature, either through disease or drought has culled these numbers back again. Thing is as we grow in numbers we also destroy so much of our enviroment on the way. But what does amaze me is how much our quality of lifestyle disappears, yet we continue to let our population grow. For thirty years I can remeber politicians telling us we need population growth to improve our social economic position, so please tell me when we get to the good bits because I must say things were much better 30 years ago when the population was smaller.

    • Danny B says:

      06:42am | 27/12/11

      My question is, didn’t any of these scientists, at some point in the process, stop and say, “hold on chaps, is this really such a good idea?”  I mean, these scientists must be fairly smart, to have created such a virus.  How could they not realise the responsibility that came with their creation until it came time to publish the work?

      Science is all well and good - I mean, humanity wouldn’t be where we are today without it.  But with this ability to change and manipulate nature comes the responsibility to do it in a way that will do no harm, and I don’t think that’s happened here.

      Reply

    • Alan says:

      09:27am | 27/12/11

      If they held off on publishing until they had a vaccine, we would have the setup for the second Mission Impossible movie.

      The only good thing in that was Thandie Newton.

    • Barbara says:

      02:35pm | 27/12/11

      Danny, they have to do these experiments to find out the extremes to which this virus can mutate, either through nature or some terrorists funded lab.  They do it so that they can study it and create a defence against it.  It will be too late when nature or some bad guy releases an airbourne version of it.

    • dogknees says:

      08:00pm | 27/12/11

      One of the problems with not doing the experiments is that if someone with “anti-social” tendencies does it, we’ll have no way to respond. At least by producing the mutated virus in the lab, we can work on finding vaccines against them. Possibly vaccines that are effective against a range of mutations. Sadly, this kind of science is almost routine these days, so hoping that no one else will be able to replicate this research is not realistic.

    • Craig says:

      06:52am | 27/12/11

      Enough information has already been released about this virus to allow competent researchers to dramatically cut the time required to replicate the results.

      Fortunately few nations wish to release a devastating plague that they cannot protect their own citizens from, except maybe the North Koreans.

      Unfortunately, several non-state groups may be sophisticated enough to follow the same research line, but crazy enough that they believe god would protect them.

      Mankind’s largest protection has always been that crazies are individuals with limited resources and access to technology.

      As biotech increasingly becomes part of everyday life this may not stay the case. It is the kind of thing that keeps many in the bio industry awake at night.

      All it takes is a single brllliant scientist with the view that humans need thinning - like rabbits in Australia - and we will see the end of modern civilisation. Though given the direction we’re headed, maybe this won’t be such a bad thing for the planet.

      Rebuilding a depopulated society to significant technical, with limited access to the plentiful resources we had two hundred years ago (and have largely used up) might be an insurmountable challenge however.

      Reply

    • Rev says:

      09:53am | 27/12/11

      Correct Craig.

      The danger is multiplied should someone of unsound mind/morals develop a vaccine.  Then one can truly play god with this planet.

    • acotrel says:

      05:42am | 28/12/11

      @Craig
      Because I am not stressed in my existence, my immune system is very strong, and I would defeat the virus if it got free in the community.  However the highly stressed workaholic go-getters would have to watch out.  The virus could be highly selective !

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      07:06am | 27/12/11

      Hi Tory,

      It is a bit like biological warfare, epidemic of certain diseases, nuclear arsenals & the atom bomb, right?  I honestly do know all how you feel about these viruses!  Because a while back myself, I was one of those very concerned & panicky people, no offence!

      At this point in my life, I am totally through with the the constant bombardment of bad news!  What is actually out there & scary at the same time. I am certain most scientists are very capable of doing much more harm than good!  All those Hollywood films like the Apocalypse Now , I especially choose not to watch at all!  Because for me personally, there is absolutely nothing worse than being constantly scared of the unknown!

      Believe it or not!!  During the so called “swine flu” epidemic I was travelling overseas a little bit hesitant but resistant to the vaccination itself. Looking back I truly believe it was blown out of proportion for the most obvious reasons! 

      Let me tell you my mother’s story during her teenage years & her experience with the Asian Flu which actually killed millions of people worldwide.  Now that was something really to worry about!  It happens to be definitely survival of the fittest, right?  Just living & actual survival are two very different things altogether! Survival takes a lot more courage, determination & patience.

      Right now in our world, I do truly believe that certain diseases are making a come back such as tuberculosis.  Why do you think that is happening more & more?  If you ask me, I would definitely say that because poverty, lack of hygiene, access to clean water & food in certain parts of the world!!

      Remember the Black Death in the mid 14th Century which did actually manage to kill an estimated 75million-200 million people?  Now that is very scary & will the history repeat itself?  May be, we should be asking this question to the scientists busy working on these viruses day in & day out.  Best regards to your editors.

      Reply

    • mick says:

      07:07am | 27/12/11

      One of the by by products of vaccines and anti biotics is that whilst almost all of the targeted organisms are killed off there are sose which survive and in time become immune to the our science.  This is the danger with the over use of anti biotics and vaccines.

      One has to worry if there are scientists out there really working on killer strains.  As was stated in Jurasic Park “nature will find a way”.  Some time or later a killer strain will get loose.  But then perhaps that will solve the problem of world over-population and maybe this will be nature’s way of bringing the system back into check….as happens with any plague.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      09:08am | 27/12/11

      “As was stated in Jurasic Park “nature will find a way”. “

      Please do not quote from the Michael Crichton school of science.  His strategy for making bestsellers is simple: “find a topic of public paranoia, create a book around it, and get rich off the back of panicked people buying said book/film/TV show.”  It is a theme he followed on everything from nanotechnology (Next) to The Japanese (Rising Sun) to sexual harassment (Disclosure) to genetic manipulation (Jurassic Park) to robots (Westworld).  He tried it on with climate change (State of Fear), but went too far the Ayn Rand.

      He regularly distorted science and biology in the interests of telling a good story, for which he was well paid, but as a result he’s not to be taken as a factual oracle.  “Life finds a way.”  Damn, I knew the dodos would be back someday.

      There’s no danger with “overuse” of vaccines.  Quite the contrary, it’s their underuse that promotes the spread of diseases through populations.  Antibiotics are a different story.

      Fort Detrick is the US Army’s bioweapons division.  It’s been operating since World War 2.  No sign of a germ apocalypse just yet.

    • Timinane says:

      10:17am | 27/12/11

      Vaccines don’t kill it is the response to the vaccine from the immune system that protects us. The wide use of antibiotics in the food industry can indeed cause trouble as opposed to using it on a case by case basis instead of as a preventative measure. Though the idea of nature bringing things back into check is crap, how does nature know if we are out of control? Only humans think human numbers are out of control.

    • mick says:

      12:22pm | 27/12/11

      Probability states that if something can happen it will.  The only variable is the time frame.  If deadly organisms are developed in the laboratory then sooner or later one will escape.  Lets not be so naive as to state the ‘never’ option.  Never occurs never.

      Stating that there are no problems with overuse of vaccines is another fairy ideology.  The reason that we are starting to see certain organisms resistant to even the strongest of antibiotics is that these vaccines have been dished out as the norm rather than being kept as the last line of defence. 

      You need to read a bit more widely St Michael and maybe watch some of the documentaries on the subject so that you become informed.  Your post is reminiscent of those who debunk climate science when most scientists (not those funded or employed by self interest groups) agree on what is happening.

    • ba'al says:

      01:31pm | 27/12/11

      @Mick.
      Vaccines are not the same as antibiotics.
      Your concerns are valid with antibiotics
      Your confusion around vaccines needs some attention. Not dismissing your concerns, simply think wires have been crossed.

    • marley says:

      01:46pm | 27/12/11

      @mick - antibiotics have nothing to do with vaccines.  The scientific principles are completely different. 

      Antibiotics basically kill bacteria (but not viruses) directly.  It is true that they have been dished out too regularly, and that people have been inclined not to take the full course of prescribed antibiotics.  As a result, not all the bacteria are killed, and those which survive tend to mutate into drug-resistant versions.  This is an acknowledged problem.

      Vaccines are completely different.  They don’t attack the bacteria or virus directly.  Rather, they stimulate the body’s natural immune system to generate antibodies which will fight off the bacteria or virus should it attack.  In effect, they give the body a blue print of a potential attacker, so that the body can recognize and defend against it.  You can’t “overuse” vaccinations in the way you can overuse antibiotics.

    • Barbara says:

      03:24pm | 27/12/11

      @Mick - as opposed to those scientists and institutions funded by Government money running into about 78 Billion world wide - at last count.  Consensus has nothing to do with science, it’s a political word.  Science is about real world measurements and repeatable results.  You’re a politician’s wet dream, believing what you are told while happily contributing to more taxes.  And if by your remark about documentaries you mean items like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, I think you’ll find about 36 factual errors and not one predicted outcome from that comedy.  Climate change is real; we have millions of years of ice core and geological data to prove it.  What isn’t is any real world data that proves humans are causing it or making it better or worse.  If there were, we wouldn’t still be debating it.  Instead we have Government paid mouth pieces like Flannery spruiking the Government line.  Not one of his predictions has come to pass either.  So Mick, get your head out of the TV guide and visit a Library where real science is recorded in things called books, and do some research of your own instead of being spoon fed propaganda wrapped up in paid for pseudo science.

    • mick says:

      07:26pm | 27/12/11

      I stand corrected on my slip.  Indeed vaccines are totally differnt to antibiotics.  Derrrrr.  Thanks folks.

      Barbara -  thanks so much for the put down and offensive text.  Unfortunately your text resembles the putting your head in the sand methodology which business interests normally employ when confronted by an inconvenient truth.  Next you’ll be advocating that smoking does not affect health because there is “no proof”.  Yeah right.

      You have correctly mentioned ice core samples which indicate that we are at a place where the planet has not been before.  But you go on to claim, just like the business funded smoking lobby, that there is no proof.  It never gets any better.  Nor does the denial for what is often as plain as the nose on your face.  Hope you had a nice Christmas.

      We all realise that media is manipulative but through the deceit we also gain information. But if I am a “a politician’s wet dream” then you are the three monkeys in one….hear no evil, see no evil, do no evil.  Well perhaps two out of the three.  Hope you had a nice Christmas and were civil to your family.

    • acotrel says:

      03:51am | 29/12/11

      @Barbara
      ‘Climate change is real; we have millions of years of ice core and geological data to prove it.  What isn’t is any real world data that proves humans are causing it or making it better or worse.  If there were, we wouldn’t still be debating it.  ‘

      The main reason for the debate is that AGW means that the neoliberal ideology is insustainable, even in the medium term. The problem is that many people cannot imagine a new minimal-carbon based paradigm and the inevitable nature of change. The industrial revolution was a good thing, it solved the problem of poverty for the world’s then relatively small population. However the likelihood is that answers we found in the 1800s are not good enough for the 21st century, and beyond.

    • Shep says:

      08:37am | 27/12/11

      And goodwill to all men. 

      Well this is a cheery little Christmas story isn’t it.  And the public has the hide to accuse the press of creating turmoil and panic whenever possible .... overreactive scaremongering .... nooo never!

      Reply

    • mick says:

      08:50am | 27/12/11

      Good call.

      “Overreactive” is why those in charge normally hide issues which cause panic.

    • ba'al says:

      09:27am | 27/12/11

      However please remember that the black plague had a similar kill rate and was the best thing to ever haopen to europe. Study your history and realise that the black plague is the reason we ended up with a enlightenment.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:00am | 27/12/11

      @ba’al - Black Death c.1348-50.  Enlightenment c. 1650 to 1700.  Nope, I don’t think there’s any obvious link.

    • ba'al says:

      11:46am | 27/12/11

      That is why I said ‘study’.
      Simplifying it.
      Black death kills half population. It kills priests, lords as well as the serfs, this undermined both the churches power and undermined the feudal system.
      Continent wide labour shortages meant serfs could demand better conditions and in some case wages. This lead to an explosion in free serfs who tended to train up to become tradesmen and artisans. This skilled people congregated in towns, they were the first real middle class.
      These towns grew into city states, it was these city states, outside the direct control of the church where western culture began to expand leading to the enlightenment.
      It is alot more complicated than that but without the huge death toll creating labour shortages and shattering the idea the church was ‘protected by god’ plus the death lead to a resurgence in hedonism and individualism.
      The more people there are the less people are valued

    • marley says:

      01:51pm | 27/12/11

      @ba,al - I have studied it.  I might conceivably agree that the Black Death encouraged the emergence of capitalism, which led indirectly to the Renaissance, but it’s a far cry to link it with the Enlightenment 300 years later.  Especially as the Enlightenment only happened in western European countries and not in Asia, where the Black Death originated, nor in Easter Europe, which it also ravaged.

    • ba'al says:

      03:47pm | 27/12/11

      I would argue it only occurred in western society becuase of the inate flexibility in western tradition, geography that allowed easier movements of people and some items of technology
      I did nit mean to suggest it is soley responsible but rather wanted people to realise that a plague wiping out half the population is not the end of the world.
      Even if 90% of people died the human race would do fine species wise.
      I have to say Marley it is refreshing to see someone else with an interest in history and obviously well read.
      Good day sir:)

    • marley says:

      06:44pm | 27/12/11

      @ba’al - hope we can have some more conversations about this and other issues in the future.  That we might disagree doesn’t matter.  Civilised and informed discourse, even if it involves disagreement,  is always something to be valued, isn’t it?

    • Notvelty says:

      06:26am | 28/12/11

      @ba’al - The problem with high-school history is that, not only have a lot of other people completed the course, but a lot of people have gone further and recognise the standard material as exactly that.  It’s great you’ve paid attention and all, but now it’s time to move on.

    • John says:

      09:42am | 27/12/11

      It seems to be these virus’s are not naturally created, but created bio-military labs. I suspect that is what swine flu is. I suspect they have covered it up. This virus, is clearly a military weapon, bio-weapons. We are not going to get rid of nukes or bio-weapons any time soon. Just look at Anthrax release’s which came from a US bio military lab and sent to US government officials. They tried to blame Al-Ciada, or create some silly connection to Iraq.

      Reply

    • mick says:

      12:26pm | 27/12/11

      Maybe a bit on the side of “Conspiracy Theory” John.  I would suggest that most new bad strains are the result of humans overusing antibiotics, resulting in the emergence of resistant strains.  .

    • Vivian says:

      09:51am | 27/12/11

      “The Day After Tomorrow, with its wild scenarios, is often used by people to dismiss climate change as some half-baked fantasy in which that Donnie Darko guy is the emo-hero. Contagion allows people to put the apocalyptic flu scenario in the same basket as Shaun of the Dead. In a sense, they are alarmist fantasies. “

      Actually no. Nobody uses The Day After Tomorrow to dismiss warming alarmists as ridiculous, laughable and wrong as is their fate when history is finally written. Nor have I ever seen any person, apart from Tory, use Contagion as a apocalyptic Shaun of the Dead scenario.

      What they are is about 100 minutes each of good fun. They are popcorn. They are escape. They are something to watch. They are not designed to “make you believe”, unless you are incredibly weak minded. Or if you have an agenda to push.

      “Luckily it can’t pass between humans, only from bird to human, so it has only killed 350 people. So far.”

      Looks like there is agenda here to me. “So far”. When this scare first came out it was going to kill millions. Decimate Europe. Here is a piece from 2005

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/349zwhbe.asp

      We have seen SARS, swine flu, Fukushima, to name a few favourites of the chattering classes, scares, lies and exaggerations. We have even seen authors at the Punch link articles that say the opposite of what they claim about Fukushima. Tory even reserects swine flu. As the article I linked above shows it only overshot the death mark by 1 million. Pretty close I guess.

      And now another scare campaign. The most implausible. So far.

      “I have spoken to dozens of public health experts about the possibility of human-to-human transmission of the flu virus. And most of them made me want to stockpile Spam.”

      Name them please. And show us the research they have put out. Tell us the organisations they represents. I get so weary of “experts”. Experts are a few things. Learned in a narrow field. Focused on a narrow area of understanding. Reliant on their area of “expertise” to be topical, alive and relevant. And in good progressive theory in need of government intervention. Progressives love a scare campaign. The elites thrive on it. Their paladins, the expert, can ride forth with “facts” and “consensus” and demand action, governmental action. Intrusion.

      Experts are also one other thing. Human. They are prone to hyperbole/ To exaggeration. To fear. To irrationality. To thinking they are the smartest in the room. To lies. To fantasy. To make the end justify the means. To concoct.

      The list goes on. Experts are as frail in body and mind as we all are. They lie, they steal, they justify. But at great cost.

      Tory writes she is doing this not to create fear but to avoid complacency. I agree 100%. Be not complacent against the expert. Be not complacent against the fear-monger. Be not lulled into not thinking and “action” by the stories of the opinion writer. Rather be afraid of the ideas of the ridiculous. Be afraid of the call for action over another scare. Be afraid of the government intruding yet again on your wallet and lives.

      Look to history and to reason.

      And most importantly go to the movies and enjoy the damn show without having to twist a good fun story into a progressive fantasy.

      Reply

    • jaki says:

      11:23am | 27/12/11

      That’s what I was going to say wink

    • John Smythe says:

      11:51am | 27/12/11

      Vivian, very well put.

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      12:29pm | 27/12/11

      Interesting use of Paladin.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:02pm | 27/12/11

      You need to get out more, Viv!

      Also you missed my point re. swine flu, which is that while it turned out to be mild, its spread proved that we cannot contain a pandemic.

      Are you seriously doubting that bird flu is a real danger? Ahhh… hold on, you dismiss experts. So therefore anyone who knows what they’re talking about. So there’ll be no reasoning with you, then.

    • marley says:

      02:11pm | 27/12/11

      @Vivian - you say, “look to history and to reason.”  Well, history says that highly infectious diseases can kill millions of people.  The 1919 Swine Flu epidemic is the obvious case in point.  And history also says we do not have the means to prevent a highly infectious, airborne disease from spreading.  The H1N1 epidemic is the case in point. 

      We also know that, given the current stage of development of modern medicine, we cannot develop and distribute vaccinations quickly enough to prevent the global spread of an infectious disease, nor do we have effective treatments for many viral infections once they do arrive.  We also know, again based on the H1N1 experience, that even if we had a vaccination against a highly dangerous disease, a significant proportion of the population would refuse to take it.

      So, reason would say, first, that we have to be aware that there is a genuine risk of a new disease evolving, and second, that, unless we react more effectively that we did with H1N1, we would not be able to counter the spread of the epidemic. 

      We don’t need to be paranoid, but we shouldn’t live in a plastic bubble either.  And if you want to know who the experts are and what they’re saying, I suggest you go to PubMed and google “avian influenza”  You might start with this one:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22010536

    • ba'al says:

      02:23pm | 27/12/11

      @Tory,
      decimating humanity would not be a big deal, a 10% kill rate is pretty low.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      02:40pm | 27/12/11

      We use the Macquarie, ba’al:

      decimate

      [‘desuhmayt] verb (t), Inf, decimated, decimating.Inf, decimated, decimating.
      1. to destroy a significant number or proportion of.
      2. to wipe out almost entirely the industry was decimated.
      3. (in the ancient Roman army) to select by lot and kill every tenth soldier of (a body of soldiers) as a punishment.
      4. Obsolete to take a tenth of or from.
      Latin decimātus , past participle. decimation, [desuh’mayshuhn] noun, decimator, noun. Originally this word referred to the killing of one in ten, and by extension to the destruction of some part of the whole. It is now frequently used to refer to almost total destruction, but despite the weight of corpus evidence in favour of this shift in meaning, some writers still do not accept it.

    • ba'al says:

      04:34pm | 27/12/11

      @Tory,
      I looked up the word outside a narrow historical lense and conceed the new definition of decimate is really ‘too destroy a significant part of the whole’. I do love the english language, it’s flexibility is the reason it is the global language.
      Thankyou for your reply, may the new year be a nice one for you.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      06:44pm | 27/12/11

      Cheers, ba’al - you too. I had it drummed into me when I was younger that ‘decimate’ was commonly misused and really meant 1/10… so I triple checked it!

    • John says:

      09:52am | 27/12/11

      Just don’t let Israel get their hands on this technology, they will most likely sell it to china for a few buks. It’s suspected they sold 69 US military Patriot Missiles to China, the shipment got intercepted in Finland a few days ago.

      Reply

    • Mitch says:

      10:37am | 27/12/11

      Oh Johnno those filfthy Jews!

    • Stinger says:

      01:39pm | 27/12/11

      Pretty sure it’s related to 9/11 John.

    • Ben H says:

      02:26pm | 27/12/11

      I’m sure Israel already has a much more advanced chemical and biological arsenal, probably engineered from western research.

      And when one speaks against the murderous Zionist nation, he is not condemning Jews in general.

    • Stinger says:

      02:50pm | 27/12/11

      Germany claim responsibility for the sale (don’t know why the link I provided proving this was banned).

    • Finn says:

      10:38am | 27/12/11

      The issue being overlooked is: the military complexes do this stuff all the time, but they *don’t* publish it. If they’d been the ones paying for this research, you’d never hear about it.

      Reply

    • Steveo says:

      11:20am | 27/12/11

      Why doesn’t anyone remember the CSIRO mouse killing virus that mutated in the 80’s? That thing killed pretty much anything it came into contact with and had an 85% communicablity rate from memory. It was a massive deal when it happened and then everyone forgets it? Anyone else remember it?

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      08:45pm | 28/12/11

      Posted a response to this the other day but it seems to have been lost.

      I’m guessing you are referring to the recombinant mousepox virus engineered to express the immunosuppressant IL-4.  The paper can be accessed here:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC114026/

      There was a massive fuss but I think it was a bit of a beat up - an apparently successful one given your sensational memories of the event.  The main issue was that the modified virus had a 60% death rate in previously immunised mice - handy knowledge if you wanted to weaponise a new version of smallpox or whatever, but also flagging important issues with using some types of experimental gene therapies.  It hasn’t been forgotten and is still regularly cited.

    • Jack says:

      11:38am | 27/12/11

      I bet only Princess Mary Frederic and Armedinijad have the vaccine

      Reply

    • Trude says:

      12:12pm | 27/12/11

      Stephen King’s ‘The Stand’ was about a man made superflu wiping out mankind. And he demonstrated very clearly how easy it would be for a virus to leave the lab and get out into the real world.

      Reply

    • Fiona says:

      08:05am | 28/12/11

      Yes, reading how the superflu spread was fascinating, enough to keep you home for weeks.

    • Anjuli says:

      01:11pm | 27/12/11

      Ignorance is bliss,it seems the more we learn the more we are in trouble.

      Reply

    • Ben H says:

      01:34pm | 27/12/11

      ‘Publishing the details could also help terrorists weaponise the virus.’
      I’m more worried about the vast stockpiles of much harsher chemical and biological agents - mass extermination devices - in the hands of governments controlled by the madest clique of maniacs on Earth.

      There are even biological weapons aimed at particular genotypes. They can even pick and choose which races, bloodlines or perhaps even character traits are ‘suitable’ to live. They won’t hestitate to achieve their depopulation agenda when they think the time is ‘right’. At least more people are waking up to it.

      It seems that real technological advancement is light-years ahead of where we think it is. One is under the impression that mainstream reporting on such content is often confined within the boundaries of accepted ‘norms’, by journalists and editors who have been groomed to accept such limits to ‘reality’.

      Reply

    • Teddy says:

      02:06pm | 27/12/11

      Humans are not the only creatures on earth. This could wipe out lots of things. I’m not saying any of that 2012 stuff is true but we seem to be heading to a tipping point. 7 billion and counting, if we all hooked up with eachother over night there would be 3.5 more billion babies on the way. Unfortunately we need a virus or a war to cull us down.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      03:10pm | 27/12/11

      Decimate? So it’ll only have a 1 in 10 death rate? Could be worse.

      Reply

    • Vivian says:

      04:18pm | 27/12/11

      I apologise for starting this second thread to reply to Tory as I cannot reply to the first for some reason. For clarity I will Tory in pieces so it remains contextual.

        ” Tory Shepherd says:
        You need to get out more, Viv!”

      I will give you the befit of the doubt and assume you are not deliberately being condescending. In answer I point you to the irony of asking me to go out more while you contemplate stocking up on Spam because of fear from public health officials. I shall also ensure when I do go out I will sit down and enjoy a movie and not attempt to twist it into some progressive fantasy of doom.

      “Also you missed my point re. swine flu, which is that while it turned out to be mild, its spread proved that we cannot contain a pandemic.”

      No. I got it. It is my point. It was not bad. It was contained through proper procedure. You however missed my point. A million were going to die. 999,999 over the actual toll. A pandemic is merely a descriptor. it defines a disease as infectious. So what. Take proper precautions with modern medical procedures and your fear campaign looks a bit shaky. Do not attempt to make “pandemic” into a term to fear. It merely describes something. Much like climate change describes a natural phenomena but has been hijacked by white shoe salesmen, liars, pedlars of deceit and main chancers to gain advantage.

        ” Are you seriously doubting that bird flu is a real danger?”

      Yes and no. Just as dealing with molten steel is a danger as long as it is conducted responsibly it is fine

      ” Ahhh… hold on, you dismiss experts. So therefore anyone who knows what they’re talking about. So there’ll be no reasoning with you, then.”

      I will again give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore any condescension so I will afford you respect you did not show me and point out a few things. I do not “dismiss” experts. I remain sceptical of anyone with a vested interest. Look at the evidence you produced. You spoke to dozens, I admire your temperament if you did, of public health experts and lo and behold the public health people tell you there is a danger to public health. Of course the correct response will be a public health response. Perhaps they will be employed in the response? Did you enquire about that?

      Let us look at your scare Tory. Here is the series of events that will need to occur for this fear campaign of yours to come to fruition. First the information will need to be published in some detail and we know that this might not occur. Secondly some terrorist will need to understand it. Third they will need to produce the infectious disease. Fourth they will need to survive it and not kill themselves, there are many statistics that show terrorist kill themselves and their own at a higher rate than they kill the public, accidents and all. Fifth, they will need to be able to deliver the disease. A bomb just makes a loud noise unless it goes off in the right area. Sixth it will have to work. Until they do it they don’t know if it will work. Seventh, in all that time they will be relying on us not developing a vaccine.

      This is the reason you are stocking up on Spam? You are honestly saying we should be concerned that this perfect storm of events will occur and a deadly pandemic will result?
      Let me humour you and concede that this will happen. That a terrorist organisation with the will and expertise to do the manufacture of a disease so virulent it will infect the world. What is the proper public response because that is what you asking for, a public response. What should we do? How much should we spend? What level of intrusion is appropriate? When should this start? You say “people may be complacent because that sort of thing only happens to Jude Law” so when do we act? Now? Tomorrow? When should I start buying shares in Spam?

      You see the point. You are peddling fear of the improbable if not impossible brought to you by vested experts. Employ someone to protect you against aliens and they will advocate the expenditure of vast sums to do that and the creation of a governmental department in charge of it.

      In any case I will leave you with this Tory. What did the Damon character do in the movie. He was immune to the disease but was unsure of whether his daughter was. Did he wait for the government “to do something”. No. He took his own precautions even though it hurt both himself and his daughter emotionally. And what did the scientist do that discovered the vaccine? Did she wait for FDA approval? For government intervention? No. She tested it on herself. She took the onus, the risk and got the reward. Perfectly libertarian.

      One thing I can say about the movie Tory. The reason why it was total bullshit and not based on any type of fact. matt Damon’s wife cheated on him. How believable is that?

      Next time you watch a movie Tory do what I do. Enjoy it. Don’t deconstruct it to fit some progressive/liberal ideal of intervention by government based on fear.

      Reply
    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      06:31pm | 27/12/11

      You need to go back and read what I wrote, because you’ve written an enormous post based on a complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. You are responding as though I was worried about the flu virus in the lab. I’m not, particularly. I was talking about in the wild, and the possibility of H5N1 mutating so it can pass from human to human, which experts – WHO, CDC, public health officials, academics, etc – are seriously worried about. But, again, if you dismiss all experts, all public health bodies, all authorities, scientific journals, articles, governments etc. as saying something only because they have vested interests, then there is no point trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. 

      And you seem to want to argue that I believe the movies, when in fact the entire premise of this piece was that they are bullshit… hmmm.

      Sorry if that all sounded condescending again. It’s hard not to be.

    • James O says:

      05:24pm | 27/12/11

      Biological weapons have been around for hundreds of years; infected corpses were catapulted over fortified walls to spread infection amongst an encircled enemy. The use of viruses in modern war was held off because of the effective use of gas in WW1. If Japan had proved a hard nut to crack it is not beyond probability that biological weapons may have been used there, the Japanese had an advanced program of it’s own a large number of attrocities proved useful to American research post war. With the threat of Soviet expansion in Western europe and the prospect of millions of mobilised troops crossing the demilitarised zone the use of germ warfare would have provided a preemptive option to the mutually assured destruction of using tactical nuclear weapons. So if you want to create a conspiracy theory it would only be limited by your imagination.

      Reply

    • Rowdy says:

      05:59pm | 27/12/11

      “The single biggest threat to man’s continued dominance on the planet is a virus.”

      —Joshua Lederberg, Nobel laureate at 33.

      Reply

    • Frank says:

      07:10pm | 27/12/11

      Meh. This is in a lab. There are far scarier things in the wild. Read your Robert Preston. Real accounts of outbreaks that trump any horror story you’ll find.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      07:10pm | 27/12/11

      They don’t need much to create this virus. all they need are pigs and a lot of the strains already known in existence. inject enough pigs with enough different combinations of strains, and the basics of how the flu virus is repackaged in pigs will inevitably lead to a strain that will be super deadly.

      I’d also be worried about bacterial superbugs. those are so much easier to genetically manipulate than a virus, and considering the german outbreak HUS inducing E.coli, imagine if that strain, which had the highest rate of HUS ever seen in an outbreak was made resistant to vancomycin, kanamycin, etc?

      Reply

    • Vivian says:

      08:15pm | 27/12/11

      Still can’t respond directly, how strange. Never mind.

      “And you seem to want to argue that I believe the movies, when in fact the entire premise of this piece was that they are bullshit… hmmm. “

      Not at all. I just read this

      “Contagion is believable because it’s based on a credible scenario – a scenario that edged a little closer to reality with this news that scientists in Holland have created the mutant killer flu virus. ”

      Did you mean it or not? You still failed to answer any of my questions. I gave you the scenario. The virus got out in the wild via weaponisation which your experts said could happen. Let me remind you of what you wrote.

      “Right now, journals Science and Nature are trying to decide whether to publish the details of the Dutch findings. It’s an important breakthrough and could help in the battle against a flu pandemic. But publishing the details could also help terrorists weaponise the virus. ”

      I am trying not to be condescending myself as you seem to be very forgetful or dismissive as to what you write when it doesn’t suit. Still let us soldier on shall we. Again, third time being a charm I am told;

      “What is the proper public response because that is what you asking for, a public response. What should we do? How much should we spend? What level of intrusion is appropriate? When should this start? You say “people may be complacent because that sort of thing only happens to Jude Law” so when do we act? Now? Tomorrow? When should I start buying shares in Spam?” That was from post 2. Same queries in essence in post 1.

      Look at all the government organisations you toss at me. Quasi-national authorities, big governmental agencies, really smart people in Universities “WHO, CDC, public health officials, academics” and yet you fail to give us the response that we should undertake, apart from buying Spam. Why are you afraid to answer questions?

      And please stop verballing me. I never said I dismiss the “experts”. Not once. I have a healthy scepticism of their claims. You are keen to have me “dismiss experts” for that way is your only moral salvation and chance to even gain a foothold in the argument and accusation I make that you are peddling second hand fear. I don’t, repeated again (sigh), dismiss them. I want you to tell me with the experience and knowledge you have gained in speaking to dozens (your words, your numbers) of them what we should do. If this is more than a meteor might crash into the earth scenario well then tell us the public response and cost. That way at least we can add it to the tab and start to add up some of the fixes “we need” because experts “can’t think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one” and this whole scenario of weaponisation or in the wild mutation is, according to “most of the people who know what they are talking about say it’s a matter of when, not if.” Sort of sounds serious. Love to know the cost the WHO puts on fighting this yet to be mutated but soon to be seen disease. I just want to know what we have to toss into the kitty. Not unreasonable is it? That’s the answer after all, give away some more capital whether it be moral, financial, physical, legal, sovereign or intellectual to government of one shape or another.

      Reply

    • JS says:

      11:02pm | 27/12/11

      Sorry Viv. I’ve tried to reply in your defense a few times. None have got through. I guess I was a little to direct in my feedback toward Tory.

    • stephen says:

      01:02am | 28/12/11

      Meteor ?
      What meteor ?

      Shapes, scenario, pathogenic,
      WHO, unreasonableness, the iconic
      government, (and who’s intellectual?)


      ... the answer is all those who drink coffee. Or

      underarm capitals sneething points for us all,
      ‘We trust them, we have no choice’... for
      we’ll now do it, (or never), the moderate, for, (I’m sorry) for
      capital, sovereign, kitty, physical, pathogenic, meteor-might-crash, and ... fuck it… and one shape or another .. and, poor.

      Viv ... do you know channel 4 ?

    • marley says:

      07:09am | 28/12/11

      @Vivian - I am not sure why you are claiming that you do not dismiss the experts, when that is precisely what you are doing.  There are scads of papers out there on Pubmed, CDC, WHO and a dozen other websites outlining the risks of bird flu mutating to human to human transmission, not to mention the Scientific American article cited by Tory.

      As for your contention that the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak was “contained through proper procedure” - well, that’s simply ludicrous.  That outbreak wasn’t contained at all, which was Tory’s point.  That outbreak spread to Australia within weeks of appearing in Mexico and the US.  I don’t think there was a country that didn’t have a significant outbreak.  Fortunately, it turned out to be a milder flu than it’s 1919 predecessor.  But what if it hadn’t been?  That’s the scenario that is giving the boffins nightmares.  Because if there’s one thing we learned from 2009, there are no “proper procedures” for containing the outbreak of a highly infectious disease in our globalized world.

      And you seem to overrate the ability of modern medicine to deal with something like the avian flu.  If the fatality rate is 60%, it goes to show that medicine is very limited in what it can do.  We can treat bacterial infections with antibiotics;  we are far less successful in treating viral infections.  Modern medicine is nowhere near the stage where, if you get the flu, there is a pill that will cure it. 

      As for your terrorist scenario, that’s almost peripheral to the argument. The point is that the scientists believe it is entirely possible for the avian flu to mutate naturally, and that if it does, we haven’t got the means to combat it effectively.  At best, we can slow but not stop the spread of a highly infectious disease.  It only took a matter of weeks from the time H1N1 appeared in Mexico and the US until it arrived here.  Yes, we can develop vaccines – rather a simple matter where flu is concerned – but mass production of those vaccines is another matter entirely.  It took 6 months to develop and mass distribute the H1N1 vaccine.  Had the disease been more lethal, millions would have died in the interim.  As for post-infection treatments, as I said, we don’t have anything much in the medical armoury to treat influenza.

      So, with or without terrorist involvement, avian flu is a threat.  And I don’t see that it would be all that difficult for a rogue state to develop a viral weapon, infect a few willing agents, and send them out into major cities to sneeze and cough at passersby.  Nature would do the rest.

    • John Smythe says:

      03:10pm | 28/12/11

      Marley,

      I think you have read a little too much into Viv’s reply. At least from my interpretation of the original article, and Viv’s points of contention therewith.

      >>>I have spoken to dozens of public health experts about the possibility of human-to-human transmission of the flu virus.

      This is typical of the media to banter about the word “expert” without any form of backing up the claim. “Experts” are a dime a dozen and can be found to support any cause you like.

      Remember, this is all under the pretext of, this is not a scare monger article….but look at the title of the article…..look at the examples…..look at the following reply.

      >>>I was talking about in the wild, and the possibility of H5N1 mutating so it can pass from human to human, which experts – WHO, CDC, public health officials, academics, etc – are seriously worried about.


      I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean? Am I to cower at home in fear that nature will happen? That a flu strain would, like they have been doing for ages now, mutate into something we haven’t prepared for yet? What?

      I do appreciate your far more civil approach to reply, and discuss the points raised, rather than the typical condescending, blame the reader for “reading it wrong” reply. With all the hyperbole and setting the context of hollywood global scare scenarios (think of the sign Wet Paint…..), it wasn’t very clear this wasn’t about someone stealing it and using it as a weapon, it was about, if scientists can purposely mutate it, what would happen when nature finally mutates it to that strain?

      If that is the real concern, then I, for one, am glad that scientists have been able to mutate it to that strain, and can now work on a cure.

      I think all Viv is doing, is what is usually asked for here, contending the points of the article, their delivery, or failure thereto.

      Cheers

    • marley says:

      06:17pm | 28/12/11

      @John Smythe - well, I admit to being more than a bit put off by the tone of Vivian’s first comment, in which she made quite a few cheap shots about “experts.”  For example: “experts are as frail in body and mind as we all are. They lie, they steal, they justify. But at great cost.”  Most experts I’ve ever met are pretty dedicated to finding out the truth. 

      And then she argued that public health experts will identify a risk because it’s in their interest to do so.  Well, if we can’t rely on public health experts to identify public health risks, exactly which experts are we supposed to listen to?

      As for the probability or otherwise of the kind of mutations mentioned in the actual article, well, did you know that the genome of the 1919 “Spanish” flu, which killed in the order of 50 million people, suggests that it had an avian origin?  It seems to have moved from some unknown bird flu into pigs and then into humans without any involvement from weapons labs. 

      So, I’d say, just dismissing expert opinion as being self-interested is rather foolish.  It’s important to understand the history of diseases, especially infectious ones, if we’re going to have develop ways of dealing with a future pandemic.  And I disagree rather strongly with the concept that “she’ll be right mate.”  That’s where I see a lot of this discussion coming from.


      The fact is, I did quite a bit of reading when the H1N1 thing blew up, and learned a lot about influenzas in general.  And yes, there are an awful lot of experts who are worried about the possibility of avian flu mutating into something as readily transmissible as H1N1 or the old Hong Kong and Asian influenzas. It’s not hard at all to find papers and articles on the issue.

    • John Smythe says:

      08:52am | 29/12/11

      Hey Marley,

      For an article that spends 3/4 of its length creating images of hype and hysteria, to then say….Hollywood is all crap…is a bit silly to me as well, and well deserving of the comments Vivian wrote.

      I too, have a problem with the media being lazy and just tossing about words like “experts”, “professionals”, “authority on xyz”, as if such words should quieten a noisy room. Especially so, without backing up the claim of the so called expertise. Don’t writers use footnotes anymore?

      “I was speaking to some “experts”...and? they should know? Are they experts in the specific field? I don’t dismiss experts either, but don’t accept an article on a topic by someone who is clearly not an expert (and nor am I) in a field based simply on “speaking with experts”.

      I support Vivian’s comments on the basis they contend the credibility of the article and its presentation, not so much on the topic matter that you are countering with.

      Again, I have to ask, ....and? Viruses (virii?) mutate all the time. Do we now live in fear, simply because we know one strain that it could possibly mutate too? The fact that we manually mutated it to identify a strain that can impact us is a good thing. Did this article really need to spend 3/4 of it using hyperbole? Hyperbole, that was dismissed by the same writer?

      This is where I comment about the quality of the gossip site this has become. Some of the topics are, truly, discussion worthy, but their presentation leaves a lot to be desired. And I believe it is along these lines that Vivian is contending the article, not so much the topic behind it.

    • marley says:

      11:14am | 29/12/11

      @John Smythe - well I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.  I took the stuff about scare movies to be the “hook” that would get a lay readership with no scientific background to read an article about an important issue.  The first couple of paragraphs and the last 14 or 15 contain the meat of the argument;  the 7 or 8 referring to films are the “lead-in”  to that argument. 

      And while the movies may be nonsense, the potential for a flu to mutate in the ways described is real, and our current mechanisms for coping are not all that effective.  And whether that mutation is a natural one or one driven by terrorism, the challenge of controlling it remains the same.  I don’t think it’s hyperbole to raise any of this.

      As for lazy journalism, if this were an article in the science section of a newspaper, I’d agree with you.  But it’s a discussion piece on a blogsite.  I don’t think it’s supposed to provide answers;  I think if it get’s people thinking about bioweapons, pandemics and the state of modern medical research, it’s done it’s job.

    • mick says:

      10:43pm | 27/12/11

      I can’t believe a post by Tory could produce such fervour.  I guess we all need to get a life, self included, and go back and enjoy Christmas with our families.  I’ll drink to that.

      Reply

    • JS says:

      01:13am | 28/12/11

      hahahaha last time I will try to respond myself. But sheesh….Viv has you beat on every aspect Tory. But I see why Viv’s make it through and mine don’t. The argument viv makes, is as you like to reply in email…“attack the article, not the author”. Sadly, unlike Viv, I don’t give credit to articles like this by wasting good time and effort debating (very easily as Viv does) the flaws therein, but cut to the chase which is your condescending manner to people who respond that don’t share your point of view.

      An article is only as good as the person who write it, so if you find my debate against your attitude and flippancy toward your reader base as “personal” as opposed to as debating the material at hand, I don’t personally see a difference. One creates the other, not the other way round. You have had your articles and position debunked so many times, usually for the same reasoning. I know I’ve tried several times, but, well constructive criticism hasn’t been a strong point for you has it? Blaming the reader for not “getting what you meant”.......you don’t see that as a problem in getting your message across? sheesh…conceited much?

      Reply

    • Brizben says:

      09:09am | 28/12/11

      Why would a country release a virus if it did not already possess a cure?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:49am | 28/12/11

      @Brizben - two points.  First, the more probable scenario is a natural mutation which leads to the avian flu becoming human-to-human transmissible.  And second, all the country would need to do would be to vaccinate its own population and then release the virus into an unvaccinated world.  It would take the rest of the world six months to catch up.

    • Brizben says:

      01:47pm | 28/12/11

      Yes the race is not to see who can manufacture an air-born virus first but who can make a cure first. Only a country with a cure can be safe from the virus. A country with a cure is a more dangerous country.

      I believe the virus is a weapon of mass destruction and should be classified accordingly.

    • kitteh says:

      11:56am | 28/12/11

      OK, it’s somewhat off topic, but here goes.

      As a Ph.D in the biological sciences, I am cringing at the lack of understanding demonstrated in both this article and many of the comments. This matches my experiences with the general community and extends not only to the academics but to how scientific research is conceived, funded and reported. Certainly I don’t expect everyone to have the knowledge of a Nobel laureate, but is a working understanding of the very basics too much to ask?

      And yet, there have been recent calls to ‘dumb down’ high school chemistry, biology and physics. Why? Because so few students take these subjects now, seeing them as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘boring’. I suppose this goes a long way to explaining why many people believe a Playboy bunny and a washed-up comic actor over world-renowned experts on developmental disorders. Maybe we should leave the debate over H5N1 to the Jersey Shore cast.

      But in defence of the public, it is not surprising that so many of us see science as a dull little side project. Scientific research in Australia is grossly underfunded. We produce some of the best scientific minds in the world, only to lose them overseas or have them change fields altogether. The poor pay is one thing, but never knowing whether you have a job is another. While competition is natural and healthy in any field, the stats indicate that most of the applications received for funding have strong merit - there just are not enough resources available. Of course, this hardly makes the news, but when we are in danger of slipping out of the top ten countries at the 2012 Olympics (ohnoes!)...yeah, you guessed it.

      Reply
    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      02:32pm | 28/12/11

      Kitteh, please let us know if there are any factual errors and we will correct them!

    • chuck says:

      06:55am | 29/12/11

      I suppose it is conceivable that either man or nature can create/evolve a rather nasty surprise for us all. I suspect some of the hype has been fostered by a rather poorly paid scientific community (albeit a small one) trying to determine tenure or grants to continue very important work, and I don’t mean that to be a criticism .

      Yeap and if you are in the limelight sporting fields it can become a Golden road harking back to the glory days of Rome.

      Maybe scientists should do a full Monty or nudey calendar to fund raise and become better known? Or perhaps really lower your standards and become a poli as their doesn’t seem to be any shortage of $‘s for study tours, 1st class tickets and an exclusive super scheme after limited “service”.

      Kitteh is on the money (pun intended) when she/he suggests that not enough is being done to promote scientific endeavour. It was and is reasonably evident also that many students are only to happy to take the soft options when at tertiary and senior secondary level. I would assert that indeed their is enough evidence that the “dumbing down” process is well and truly in place given the debate on climate change/climate warming and indeed some of the responses to this article eg. inoculation of an entire population and the efficacy of such a proposal but it is reassuring that the population has so much faith in science isn’t it ha, ha?

      Reply

    • Kassandra says:

      11:34am | 29/12/11

      Don’t know why my comment from yesterday didn’t make it onto the field. Maybe too long-winded? Whatever. Short version follows:

      The most dangerous thing in an actual infectious disease pandemic is fear. The disease itself is likely to cause less harm than the public hysteria accompanying it. This is well recognised. People are easily panicked and health facilities are quickly overwhelmed by people who are not infected but who have various non-specific symptoms and are terrified that they might be. Scaremongering and witch-hunting abounds with extreme and irrational responses to fear more than reality, including by bureaucrats in health services. The media and politicians tend to panic more and faster than most, and unfortunately often make the whole situation a lot worse than it would otherwise be.

      But don’t worry too much, it is possible but isn’t very likely to happen from a spontaneous H1N1 mutation or from a military or terrorist bioweapon despite Tori’s army of alleged experts (whoever they are) saying “when not if”. The track record of “experts” on predictions like this in recent years has been stupendously poor. Just look at the recent doomsday scares we’ve already been through with feared or actual “pandemics” which turned out to be fizzers in terms of actual effects. The history of military/terrorist uses (failures) of biological weapons is even less worrying.

      Don’t confuse the opinions of experts on public health (who deal primarily with epidemiology, statistics and public policy across a range of health issues) with experts on microbiology and infectious diseases, which is an entirely different and highly specialised field.

      Reply

    • Kassandra says:

      01:02pm | 29/12/11

      Oops typo meant H5N1 sry. The H1N1 subtype was the flu virus responsible for the 1918 “Spanish flu” and 2009 “swine flu” pandemics.

    • marley says:

      02:35pm | 29/12/11

      @Kassandra - well actually, I’ve read several abstracts of articles by experts in infectious diseases, and they agree that there will be further pandemics, with H5N1 and H9N2 both considered as potential candidates, along with old favourites like H1N1. 

      And let’s not forget that there were two pandemics in the 20th century after 1919 - the Asian flu in the mid 50s (H2N2) and the Hong Kong flu in the late 60s (H3N2) - both of which killed quite a number of people though certainly not on the scale of the “Spanish” flu.

      So,  it seems to me that the experts in public health and in microbiology and infectious diseases, are not all that far apart on the likelihood of further pandemics.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:23PM

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:21PM

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

36

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

69

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed