[permaculture-oceania] Bird flue conspiracy alleged; fiscal morality of neo-cons really the point

[jedd]

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 3:56 pm, Russ Grayson wrote:
 ] FYI, forwarding on the following whihc reflects on the fiscal
 ] maorality of neo-conservatives.
 ]
 ] >From: "Lynda Simpson" <lyndenial at hotmail.com>
 ] >Date: 8 June 2006 11:21:30 PM

 Russ, I'm assuming this was meant to go to, and will subsequently
 pop up in, p-oceania.  Apologies if that's not the case.  If not from
 you, then I'm sure someone else will feel compelled to propagate it.

 The usual wazzing in the wind spiel follows.  Anyone who's read
 it before can peacefully press their delete key now.


 ] Do you know that 'bird flu' was discovered in Vietnam 9
 ] years ago?

 Well, yes, sort of.  I've been tracking it for about 6 years, which
 is about 5 years longer than the pop media, and about 5.5 years
 longer than the questionably-informed conspiracy theorists.

 And I believe it was first identified in China, 10 years ago.


 ] Do you know that barely 100 people have died in the whole
 ] world in all  that time?

 Specifically from H5N1, I guess this means (because I'm sure more
 people have died in the whole world in all that time...).  But yes,
 that number may be right.  53% mortality, which is slightly more
 of a worry.  Just how frightening a disease is comes down to (in
 very rough terms) mortality versus spreadability.  Diseases that
 have high mortality tend to inherently reduce their rate of spread.

 Most famous example -- ebola.  It wipes out its host before there's
 been a goodly period of time to spread.  High mortality, just works
 too fast.  Diseases that spread really well -- so have a long
 incubation period, are contagious while the patient is asymptomatic,
 and as a bonus come from a family that is reknowned for jumping to
 other species -- even if they have a relatively low mortality rate,
 are far more concerning.  HIV is the perfect example -- though its
 projected mortality rate is close to 100%.  Spanish flu from the
 first half of this century is a better example, as it had a more
 modest mortality rate -- but it still wiped out somewhere between
 50 and 100 million people in less than half a decade.

 But back to asserted facts - there's stories (from 2005) that suggest
 at least 300 people have died from H5N1 in China alone.  It's
 probable that the '100 dead from bird flu' is an outdated statistic,
 but I don't know how old this particular piece of propaganda is.


 ] Do you know that it was the Americans who alerted us to
 ] the efficacy of the human antiviral TAMIFLU as a preventative.

 A preventative?  Of what?  Tamiflu is not a vaccine.  This is a common
 misunderstanding, assisted by the ignorance of the pop media.

 There are no vaccines, as I understand it, for H5N1.  And, as I've
 ranted about on this list before, it's not like one would be all
 that useful anyway.  H5N1 isn't the major concern .. at least, not
 for humans.

 Anyway, given that a significant amount of medical research goes
 on in the USA, it's not a statistical anomaly that 'the Americans'
 identified one of the handful of existing antiviral products as
 having some effect against certain high profile viruses.


 ] Do you know that TAMIFLU barely alleviates some symptoms of the
 ] common flu?

 I'm sure this is somehow relevant .. perhaps in a parallel universe.

 Was this person perhaps forced into purchasing TAMIFLU when
 they were younger?

 Depending who you ask, between 30 and 60% of prescription medicine
 does not work as advertised.  This is hardly news.


 ] Do you know that against a SUPPOSED mutant virus such as H5N1,
 ] TAMIFLU barely alleviates the illness?

 Yes, but then I have an understanding of how RNA functions, and
 a slightly vaguer understanding of how antivirals function.

 You could possibly argue that if 3 billion people were about to die,
 and by distributing a medicine that may save saving a mere 1% or
 so, that you could 'barely alleviate' the mortality by saving around
 30 million people -- that this might be an option worth pursuing,
 but even so it still misses the point.
 

 ] Do you know that to date Avian Flu affects birds only?

 This perhaps accounts for its otherwise bewildering name.

 Nonetheless, this assertion contradicts the earlier assertion by the
 author that 100 people had died from it.


 <anti-Roche/Gilead/Rumsfeld invective snipped>


 ] Bush's friends decide that the medicine TAMIFLU is the solution
 ] for a pandemic that has not yet occurred and that has caused a 
 ] hundred deaths worldwide in 9 years.

 Well, quite a few researchers, medicos and scientists believe that
 Tamiflu will be useful, in some way, as a stop gap measure, or maybe
 as a stepping stone towards a better solution, in the event of a
 nasty new strain of flu.  But it may not.  I don't think anyone thinks
 it to be a solution, because it seems to be well understood that
 we don't know what strain we'll be dealing with -- primarily because
 it hasn't evolved yet.  This is more complicated than repeating the
 mantra 'Bush is bad' and rocking back and forward on the edge of
 the bed, but, well, hey -- life's complicated.  Deal with it.


 ] This medicine doesn't so much as cure the common flu.

 There is no cure for the common flu.  I don't think anyone
 has asserted that there is -- so it's not compelling to assert
 that this stuff isn't one.


 ] In normal conditions the virus does not affect humans.    

 This is the bit that a lot of people don't get.  It's not normal
 conditions that the cognoscenti are worried about -- it's the abnormal
 ones that are going to bite us on the proverbial.

 There are now growing concerns (see below) that the impact of
 H5N1 will be significant amongst various avian species.


 Look, I'm sure there are some pretty horrendous things going on
 in various power cliques in the USA, and indeed elsewhere, but
 misinformation is propaganda, no matter which 'side' it comes from.

 I think it's preferable that people understand this stuff (come on,
 it's year-8 biology!) rather than blindly subscribe to either the
 'take this or die' or 'they're all evil' camps.  Harder, but
 nonetheless preferable.

 I've attached the editorial from New Scientist from about a month
 ago, on the subject of the pop media's attitude towards Bird Flu,
 in an attempt to provide some [further] balance.

 Jedd.


 ] New Scientist editorial : 13 May 2006
 ] Crying Wolf Over Bird Flu?
 ]
 ] THE backlash was predictable. Clamour in the world's media about
 ] the threat of H5N1 bird flu had been building up for months, and
 ] reached a climax when the virus arrived in western Europe. Now
 ] those stories are giving way to talk of scaremongering. "It's
 ] still only a disease of birds," goes the cry. "These people are
 ] trying to scare us to death over something that may never
 ] happen."
 ]
 ] In the UK, the backlash struck after several weeks of headline
 ] news about a dead swan with H5N1, and an outbreak of a related
 ] strain in chickens. In the US, this week sees the screening of
 ] Fatal Contact: Bird flu in America, a "what if" disaster movie.
 ] Already critics are asking if it is necessary to scare the public
 ] in this way.
 ]
 ] The bird flu threat still exists, so what is going on? The truth
 ] is that the backlash arises largely from the nature of the news
 ] business. Nothing sells like a potential threat, especially one
 ] that elected politicians should be dealing with. Reporters even
 ] have a duty to dig out such threats. But that done, and after a
 ] short delay, someone will come along and say, "Look, the threat
 ] didn't materialise. They're just crying wolf!" That sells, too.
 ]
 ] The resulting oscillations between stories about potential
 ] threats and dismissal of those stories probably go deeper than
 ] merely selling news. We humans harbour conflicting needs: to be
 ] warned of danger, and to be reassured, especially if the threat
 ] is one over which we have little control. So we buy into both
 ] types of story time and again.
 ]
 ] The problem emerges when this see-sawing influences politicians
 ] and policy. The threat of pandemic flu could be hanging over us
 ] for many more of these cycles. H5N1 itself may continue its own
 ] oscillations between wild birds and poultry for years (see
 ] "Animal apocalypse"). It may never go pandemic, or it may happen
 ] this year. Our understanding of molecular biology and evolution
 ] means we know there is a threat that is too serious to ignore,
 ] yet we cannot say if or when it will become reality. In this
 ] respect it resembles other areas of science, such as predicting
 ] earthquakes and the damaging effects of climate change.
 ]
 ] If we are warned of a threat that then fails to materialise, our
 ] natural reaction is suspicion. Eventually, the threat may lose
 ] its credibility, and governments may start to forget it. This
 ] must not be allowed to happen with bird flu. Our response should
 ] not depend on shifts in public anxiety that are based more on how
 ] the news media work than on facts. A scientific warning about
 ] pandemic flu is not "crying wolf", even if does not happen
 ] tomorrow, next week, or at all. Forget the backlash, H5N1 bird
 ] flu remains a real threat.