[mike777]

Seems the first person to person transmission of bird flu has occured on Sumatra. Seven family members died. As usual the usa network news does a terrible job at telling us what is going on. World Heath Org. (WHO) says they are not overly concerned, whatever that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatra

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/...reut/index.html

[Impact]

I think that you will find that despite the familial problem, there is no empirical evidence of human to human transmission - in fact the reverse: exposure to the same causes.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://w...3BPVQ60eYO1g,jY

This is the difference between some of the "news releases" and "reports" filed by/with yahoo, and other sources which occasionally rely on facts.....which do not make for such sensational news.

Not saying that it couldn't - or won't happen - just not yet on the available evidence!

[mike777]

These are the latest fragmented, incomplete facts I have seen.
1) The bird flu can transmit from human to human in an inefficient manner.
2) We should all follow what the experts have told us in the past to do.
3) As far as I can see they tell us to do nothing and just hope and pray.

[Gerben42]

Quote

3) As far as I can see they tell us to do nothing and just hope and pray.

Another thing on your to do list: Don't panic!

[Al_U_Card]

Welcome to the culture of doom. Used to be that we were controlled by the fear of going to a fiery hell. Now it is death by disease. The facts are that these diseases have existed and will continue to exist. The exposure and transmission have undoubtedly been increased by the spread and increase in numbers of humanity. The increase in media coverage and hype is also a great factor as to how these "threats" are perceived.

Improved hygiene increased our lifetimes twofold. Increased awareness may make that increase somewhat less than pleasant.

[Gerben42]

We need to realize that a new flu is not the end of the world. The media have a way of blowing it up as they did before with for example Y2k.

Also instead of hope and pray why not give yourself a better chance and live healthy? If you then get the flu you will most likely not be among the ones who die from it.

[the saint]

There is a case to say that we need an epidemic or two to reduce human population to manageable levels.

[Al_U_Card]

Malaria only kills 2 million or so a year. Where are typhus and cholera when you need them? Oh yeah, we in the rich nations tend to forget that our health is linked to our wealth. Live in squalor for a while and see how long you last.

[bid_em_up]

What I find disconcerting is what you find out if you do some research on who stands to profit from bird flu.

When was bird flu first discovered in humans? 1997.

What is the current proscribed method for treating bird flu? A drug called Tamiflu.

Who has the development and marketing rights to Tamiflu? Roche Laboraties.

Who owns the patent and licensed Tamiflu to Roche Laboraties? Gilead Sciences.

When did Gilead license Tamiflu to Roche? Sometime in the early 1990's.

At some point during the summer of 2005, Gilead decided that Roche had not marketed Tamiflu properly and sued to terminate its license agreement. In November 2005, in the "interest" of public health, the two companies reworked their agreement to give Gilead a larger percentage of royalties along with some additional "reimbursements" for prior royalties and lack of marketing.

What current Secretary of Defense was on the Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences from 1988 to 2001 and its Chairman of the Board from 1997 to 2001? You guessed it, Donald Rumsfeld.

He left Gilead Sciences in 2001 to join the current administration, but still retains a substantial stock holding (estimated to be between $5 million and $25 million) and that is probably undervalued considering that in 2001 shares of Gilead Sciences, Inc. traded in a range between $6.64 and $17.93. Between January and April 2006, its price range has been $53.00 to $65.62. They currently trade at $55 and change.

As Arsenio Hall would have said.....Things that make you go, hmmmmmm.

[luke warm]

i knew it!! those damn bushites, warming the globe, increasing world terrorism, and now hoping for the spread of bird flu to make money... bastards

[Al_U_Card]

See a penny, pick it up
but don't bend over or you'll get... a sore back?

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on May 25 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

i knew it!! those damn bushites, warming the globe, increasing world terrorism, and now hoping for the spread of bird flu to make money... bastards

I don't know which is worse, the fact that they are no worse than their multiple predecessors or that they don't hide it as well.....

[mikeh]

The report I watched on the Sumatra cluster indicated that the WHO team on-site had not, as of yesterday, found an animal origin, and that one of the dead was not exposed to the same source as the original group: a family that had shared a barbeque and that had had several members spend the night in the same room. The 'unique' death was another family member who was thought to have contracted the virus when caring for his son, who was one of the barbeque guests.

The apparent significance of this cluster was not the so-far-suspected human to human transmission: such has occurred in the past, contrary to Mike's original post (at least, according to the WHO expert interviewed for the report) but, rather, that the infection of the care-giving father was thought likely to be the first seond-generation human to human contact: i.e. human to human and then from the secondarily infected human to a third. Obviously, the evolution of the virus to that form of transmission is a major step on the way to the feared pandemic. However, the report contained another interview with an epideminologist pointing out that all of the victims were from a single family and that none of the other villagers had so far contracted the virus. So the pandemic panic button should not yet be pressed. Altho newspaper sales and bad television movie scripts are on the increase.

[bid_em_up]

luke warm, on May 25 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

i knew it!! those damn bushites, warming the globe, increasing world terrorism, and now hoping for the spread of bird flu to make money... bastards

That's fine. Believe me, I am not one to buy into the "conspiracy theories" that rampantly abound. But considering that:

George Bush has ties to the oil industry, and that he would realize what the likely effect on the prices of oil from an attack on Iraq would be. Prices would most likely go up, benefitting both himself and his friends in the industry.

Dick Cheney has ties to Halliburton, the company that was awarded the majority of contracts dealing with of rebuilding Iraq's oilfields. For a look at how this has benefitted Halliburton, you only need to reference their 5 year chart:

http://finance.yahoo...q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y

Or for a more dramatic effect, take a look at the charts on Halliburton Watch.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

You cant convince me that they didnt forsee or couldnt project the probable outcome of the financial effect on this stock by making the attack on Iraq and its future "rebuilding" efforts.

And now this with Rumsfeld.

Granted, these are all men from powerful and influential families, movers and shakers so to speak, so the possibilities of their having ties to companies that stand to benefit from key policy decisions at some point in time are increased. Their likelihood of being on a Board of Directors or president of a company that would stand to benefit is much greater than mine, and most likely yours or the majority of any of the other posters on this forum. Fine. I conceed that point.

But, at what point in time, do these things stop being coincidences that are bound to happen on occasion, and instead, start becoming legitimate concerns? How many have to occur?

Hmmmmmmmm.

[luke warm]

lincoln had a secretary named kennedy
kennedy had a secretary named lincoln
both presidents were killed by men who used first, middle, and last names
lincoln was shot in ford's theater
kennedy was shot in a ford
booth broke his leg when jumping from the balcony of the theater, and it was set by a dr. mudd.. from this came "his name is mud"
oswald was killed by a man named ruby... from this came 'ruby tuesday' (ok, i made that up)
coincidences? i think not

while i do understand your points, i don't ascribe the same motives to the bushite actions that you do... if you are in fact right, that would make these men worse than unethical... they would be evil

[bid_em_up]

Again, I say hmmmmmmm.

An election that was, in some voters opinions, a stolen and shallow victory. (Not my point of view as such, but I can understand to some degree where they are coming from).

A policy of locking people up without charges, legal counsel or hearings on the basis of what they "might" be doing. What happened to our right to free speech?
Our right to proper legal counsel/representation? Our right to a hearing on what grounds or charges are being brought against us that caused us to be held as a prisoner?

A policy of what appears to be spying on the American people without warrants or just cause via wiretapping and/or data mining in the interests of "national security".

Outing a CIA operative's true identity because you didnt like her husbands vocal position against your administrations policy in Iraq and the claims that were used to go to war.

Using what is being shown to be false (and according to some, known at the time to be false) claims regarding chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons as the reasons for going to war with Iraq. How are the American people going to react if and when it is proven for a fact that the justifications used for this war were false? What kind of person would knowingly use false claims to justify this war? A good one?

A policy of detaining and abusing POW's or suspected terrorists on foreign soil because we are not "allowed" to do so in the US. If it is wrong to do it here, it is still just as wrong to do it anywhere else. I am not saying they shouldnt be abused, I am all for staking known convicted terrorists to ant hills in the hot sun and then covering them with syrup until they tell all they know or die a slow and excrutiating death; unfortunately the courts wouldn't allow it. But I digress. And yet.......current policy appears to at least tolerate, if not actually encourage such actions or similar ones to be taken.

In the current administration, it appears that if you make anti-US statements or perform any action that possibly could be considered as terrorist-related, if they so desire, they can effectively detain you permanently without cause or proper procedure. The only justification they appear to need is to claim "it's in the interests of national security". Who makes this decision? What man is "pure" enough to be given this power? In the eyes of the founding fathers, nobody was. Thats one of the main reasons why the legal bodies and powers were seperated the way they were and no one person was given this kind of power/authority and checks and balances were incorporated into the system to prevent abuse of the system. Somebody appears (at least it can be perceived that way) to be attempting to claim that he is above this authority and he is above the checks and balances when it comes to matters of national security. This precedent (or president, take you pick of words) concerns me as it should all US citizens. But as to be expected, for the most part, we are too apathetic to care.

Is this your definition of "good" or "ethical" people? Or are they the actions of someone much more "sinister" and "evil"? All the while believing they are doing the right thing............

The last president was almost impeached for something which I considered to be much less offensive. To me, there is a major difference between having an affair while in office and then lying about it trying to save face (or to not piss your wife off), and actually violating the US Constitution, which is what appears to be taking place in the current administration on an almost routine basis. Both presidents took/are taking the "Deny Deny Deny" route, the only difference was that Clinton had enough charisma for it to actually be effective. People wanted to believe him and to a lot of people, they could at least relate to wanting to deny having an affair. Bush doesnt have this luxury and the "Deny Deny Deny" routine is wearing thin.

Mind you, I am just attempting to be thought provoking when I make these statements, but how much more of these kind of actions do the American people withstand and tolerate before we wake up one day, only to find ourselves being governed by a state that we originally thought was "good" but has, in fact, turned out to be otherwise? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? Are we heading down the path of destruction of the US Constitution and the rights it granted to every US citizen? Is it ok to give up some of these rights in the interests of "national security"? How far will it go, or how far will they go, and when do we as US citizens say "ENOUGH ALREADY"?!

I dont know, but I am certainly concerned. Hopefully without just cause. Please dont let these things be true because I dont know that I could look at myself in the mirror everyday, knowing that I voted for the man responsible for the downfall of this country.

Oops, I gotta go....somebody is knocking on my door. Think I should let them in?

Hmmmmmm.



I actually debated with myself for several hours whether or not I was going to post this......

[Winstonm]

Paraphrase from "The Godfather":

"Presidents and senators don't have people killed."
"Now who's being naive?"