Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Swine Flu & Ethnic Targetting

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    forgot to link
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021547.stm

    And please note:
    Almost all infections outside of Mexico have been mild and only a handful of patients have needed hospital treatment.


  • Options
    #63
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    forgot to link
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021547.stm

    And please note:

    And the out break started where? And how long ago? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #64
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Diogenes wrote: »
    And the out break started where? And how long ago? :rolleyes:

    Who knows? Not you or me.
    Growing evidence in California suggests that early flu cases had no apparent origin in Mexico. Many of the early California victims -- including the first two cases -- say they hadn't traveled to Mexico and had no contact with pigs. Some may have fallen ill before the first Mexicans did.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113696409275445.html


  • Options
    #65
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Your misunderstanding me. Purposely or not I can't Imagine.
    Or maybe your theory doesn't hold up.

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Look at the facts.

    A quick calculation gave me

    Non-Mexican Confirmed Cases:605
    Number of Deaths: 0

    Mexican Confirmed Cases: 701
    Number of Deaths: 26 + the 1 Mexican in the US death.

    World Cases vs Mexican Cases: 86.3%
    Mexican proportion of deaths vs Worldwide figures: 100%
    I wonder could there be another explanation for that?
    oh wait I gave two.
    It started in Mexico
    Mexico doesn't have the best hospitals.

    And again in all the links you provide they talked about a virus being activated in a person due to a genetic marker.
    There's nothing about people being hit with a milder version of it.

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Well if can work on the assumption that it was a field test surely it is advantageous to have the guinea pigs under your sphere of influence. All the Mexican samples were tested by the tax parasites that are the CDC.
    That's two assumptions, the the CDC are "tax parasites."
    And again why would you test a bioweapon that has a chance of effecting the people you don't want it to infect?

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    No I am hypothesising. Unfortonately as are you but at least I can admit it. What belief are you going by?
    No i'm pointing out weaknesses in you theory. Of which there are many.
    I'm operating under the belief that the government aren't incompendant supervillians.

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    The application would seem to be available and I would direct you towards the statistics again above.
    Wow cause I just made up those examples off my head with no basis in reality.


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    I don't believe for a second you believe that. :confused::confused::confused:
    What you are saying is that there is no profits to be made, in particular by big pharma - that's a joke.
    And how much and for where exactly would big pharma make this money?

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    I don't believe you mean this either. If so, what in your view is the hysteria comparable to??
    Bird flu, Global warming, the usual.


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Best I can do is the complicit media's warmongering pre the illegal invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq. A million people have died due to this. What in the world makes you think they value American lives any higher?]
    Nice non sequiter there.


  • Options
    #66
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    King Mob wrote: »
    Or maybe your theory doesn't hold up.


    I wonder could there be another explanation for that?
    oh wait I gave two.
    It started in Mexico
    Mexico doesn't have the best hospitals.



    your explanation doesn't hold water....
    yes it started in mexico... which also supports the theroy that is was exposed to the mexicans by the u.s....
    having the best or worst hospitals has no bearing on this, as virtually all of the people of non mexican origin especially outside of mexico have being given some tamli flu tablets and told to go home and rest... they didn't stay in hospital.... so having bad or good hospitals is no bearing on this...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    aninterestin article in one of the papers here over the weekend

    The australian Supplies of Tamiflu will be out of Date (3 year shelf life) in a few weeks

    Now given the current economic climate most Governments would not be all that keen to stock up on something they didnt use last time, and didnt really look like needing again, then lo and behold as if Scripted, along comes this deadly PAndemic, now its only killed a few Mexicans so far, but itsa a Pandemic, suddenly theres public pressure on the govt to buy more Tamiflu.

    course it 'Could' all be a 'coincidence' :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #68
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    Mahatma coat wrote: »

    The australian Supplies of Tamiflu will be out of Date (3 year shelf life) in a few weeks

    course it 'Could' all be a 'coincidence' :rolleyes:

    Wow, there is a flu outbreak and one country in the whole worlds Tamiflu supplies just happens to be running out, what are the chances? Maybe about 1 in 1? Conspiracy!


  • Options
    #69
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Undergod wrote: »
    Well it's evidence that viruses can be made to target ethnicities, but can flu do that?



    marco_polo seems to think not. Are there any links backing this up?

    Only everything we understand about how the flu virus infects.

    Perhaps it ought to be the bioweapon proponents who should to provide links that show a plausible mechanism whereby the hemagglutinin protein on the surface of the Influenza virus can be engineered to bind only to the membranes of the respiratory tract cell of certain genetic groupings?


  • Options
    #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robtri wrote: »
    your explanation doesn't hold water....
    yes it started in mexico... which also supports the theroy that is was exposed to the mexicans by the u.s....
    And how do you reach this conclusion.
    It doesn't make any sense.
    robtri wrote: »
    having the best or worst hospitals has no bearing on this, as virtually all of the people of non mexican origin especially outside of mexico have being given some tamli flu tablets and told to go home and rest... they didn't stay in hospital.... so having bad or good hospitals is no bearing on this...
    Any evidence for this?

    What treatment are the Mexicans getting instead?
    How long where the Mexicans who died infected before treatment?
    how many non Mexicans had a similar exposure and time before treatment?


  • Options
    #71
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    King Mob wrote: »
    And how do you reach this conclusion.
    It doesn't make any sense.

    Ok, the CT goes that this is a bio weapon test and that mexico was the target for this test, so your original comment that it started in Mexico, can therefore be used to support the CT as well...

    King Mob wrote: »
    Any evidence for this?

    What treatment are the Mexicans getting instead?
    How long where the Mexicans who died infected before treatment?
    how many non Mexicans had a similar exposure and time before treatment?

    well I could say look at the irish guy, who was diagnosed as having swine flu, he was told to go home and take some tamli flu tablets... same as the people in england...
    which implies that hospital care is not a factor in the deaths... as here and the uk, no hospital care was really given...
    which is in contrast to your original statment.....

    now you bring up timelines, which wasn't raised before... I don't know is the answer, I believe the incubation period is 24-48 hours for swine flu, but how long after symtoms showed did the mexicans get tablets, I don't know unless you do, you can't use that argument..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robtri wrote: »
    Ok, the CT goes that this is a bio weapon test and that mexico was the target for this test, so your original comment that it started in Mexico, can therefore be used to support the CT as well...
    Occams razor. Which explanation need the least assumptions?

    And why not test it in a country further away with less chance of the virus coming to America?

    robtri wrote: »
    well I could say look at the irish guy, who was diagnosed as having swine flu, he was told to go home and take some tamli flu tablets... same as the people in england...
    which implies that hospital care is not a factor in the deaths... as here and the uk, no hospital care was really given...
    which is in contrast to your original statment.....
    Again are you going to back this up with anything?

    Do you know the details of the cases or are you just making generalisations and claiming them as fact.
    Have you considered or have evidence to exclude that Mexican hospitals weren't able to diagnose in time or didn't have the drugs needed to hand or a hundred other factors that would have lead to death?
    And what about the people in Mexico who are infected but aren't dying?
    robtri wrote: »
    now you bring up timelines, which wasn't raised before... I don't know is the answer, I believe the incubation period is 24-48 hours for swine flu, but how long after symtoms showed did the mexicans get tablets, I don't know unless you do, you can't use that argument..
    I don't know the exact details. But it is a much more likely explanation than "bio weapon".

    And if you can't discount it there's no reason to believe the virus is targeted to Mexicans.

    And we've yet to see any hard evidence about the make up of the virus that would prove it was targeted.

    The only reason so far given to believe that it is a bio weapon is "there is no other reason why only Mexicans have died."
    I've given three.


  • Options
    #73
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »

    course it 'Could' all be a 'coincidence' :rolleyes:


    No...clearly the Swiss are behind it all.

    Roche - the manufacturers of Tamiflu - are Swiss.


  • Options
    #74
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    robtri wrote: »
    Ok, the CT goes that this is a bio weapon test
    Just pausing on that idea for a second...

    Can you think of a plausible reason why someone would choose influenze for a bio weapon. More explicitly, can you think why they might choose a virus known for the rapidity and flexibility with which it mutates?

    Surely, if you're going to bio-engineer something, you want it to be stable? If you're going to bio-engineer it to be somehow targetted, then surely the last thing you want is a virus which is known for its capability to change...a virus which is one of the most successful at "finding" ways around existing immunities?

    I mean...wouldn't you feel really dumb if you bio-engineered a flu to kill whoever leaving you and yours alone, only to have it mutate and kill you instead of them? Or if it mutated and became harmless? Surely you'd be better off picking a more stable virus?


  • Options
    #75
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    bonkey wrote: »
    Just pausing on that idea for a second...

    Can you think of a plausible reason why someone would choose influenze for a bio weapon. More explicitly, can you think why they might choose a virus known for the rapidity and flexibility with which it mutates?

    Surely, if you're going to bio-engineer something, you want it to be stable? If you're going to bio-engineer it to be somehow targetted, then surely the last thing you want is a virus which is known for its capability to change...a virus which is one of the most successful at "finding" ways around existing immunities?

    I mean...wouldn't you feel really dumb if you bio-engineered a flu to kill whoever leaving you and yours alone, only to have it mutate and kill you instead of them? Or if it mutated and became harmless? Surely you'd be better off picking a more stable virus?

    No the flu is perfect for testing purposes.... because of its natural instability, if you can show that you can control this virus so it is genetically modified enough so that it will only kill its intended ethnic grouping, it would give you a lot more funding to continue this with more lethal virus's.

    Also because of its natural ability to change, this new outbreak would not automatically be attributed to bio engineering, it would be put down to its natural change.... it makes a great cover story for the testing.....

    if you picked a more stable virus for testing, once it is anyalysed there would be a lot of questions asked about its origins, as that virus would not normally change without human intervention, way to risky....too many questions would be asked.


  • Options
    #76
    thecommander
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    robtri wrote: »
    No the flu is perfect for testing purposes.... because of its natural instability, if you can show that you can control this virus so it is genetically modified enough so that it will only kill its intended ethnic grouping, it would give you a lot more funding to continue this with more lethal virus's.

    Also because of its natural ability to change, this new outbreak would not automatically be attributed to bio engineering, it would be put down to its natural change.... it makes a great cover story for the testing.....

    if you picked a more stable virus for testing, once it is anyalysed there would be a lot of questions asked about its origins, as that virus would not normally change without human intervention, way to risky....too many questions would be asked.

    Why design a bio weapon that possibly kill everyone, and the creators? Doesn't make sense.


  • Options
    #77
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robtri wrote: »
    No the flu is perfect for testing purposes.... because of its natural instability, if you can show that you can control this virus so it is genetically modified enough so that it will only kill its intended ethnic grouping, it would give you a lot more funding to continue this with more lethal virus's.

    Also because of its natural ability to change, this new outbreak would not automatically be attributed to bio engineering, it would be put down to its natural change.... it makes a great cover story for the testing.....

    if you picked a more stable virus for testing, once it is anyalysed there would be a lot of questions asked about its origins, as that virus would not normally change without human intervention, way to risky....too many questions would be asked.
    Except it can't be controlled with that much accuracy. To be targeted to Mexicans then mutate so that it would lose that targeting and all evidence that it was engineered. The flu virus is very prone to change.

    And of course now the conspiracy completely unprovable.

    So if there if no physical evidence the virus is engineered, and you can't exclude other more likely explanations for the Mexicans who died, why do you believe that this flu is a bioweapon?


  • Options
    #78
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    King Mob wrote: »
    Except it can't be controlled with that much accuracy. To be targeted to Mexicans then mutate so that it would lose that targeting and all evidence that it was engineered. The flu virus is very prone to change.

    And of course now the conspiracy completely unprovable.

    So if there if no physical evidence the virus is engineered, and you can't exclude other more likely explanations for the Mexicans who died, why do you believe that this flu is a bioweapon?

    can you prove that the flu virus cannot be genetically engineered to resit change...

    ohhh by the way I don't believe the virus is a bio weapon, just play devil's advocate on this one, just for the debate


  • Options
    #79
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    thecommander wrote: »
    Why design a bio weapon that possibly kill everyone, and the creators? Doesn't make sense.
    likewise why design bombs that can possibly kill everyone ????
    all weapons designed have the possibility of killing everyone including their creators..... thats where terms like "friendly fire" come from...


  • Options
    #80
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    robtri wrote: »
    can you prove that the flu virus cannot be genetically engineered to resit change...

    No more than I can prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, or that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto.

    In case these references aren't familiar to you...the notion of "disproof" or falsification only arises after there is (at least somewhat) compelling reason to believe in the possibility of existence.


  • Options
    #81
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    bonkey wrote: »
    No more than I can prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, or that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto.

    In case these references aren't familiar to you...the notion of "disproof" or falsification only arises after there is (at least somewhat) compelling reason to believe in the possibility of existence.


    Am I correct in what i believe you to be saying... you are saying that have no evidence that the flu virus cannot be genetically modified to resist change.. and yet with no evidence you believe this fact???

    here's a link to a new zealand report, of agovernment approved genetically modified virus... it can be done
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2320541


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    bonkey wrote: »
    No more than I can prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, or that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto.

    In case these references aren't familiar to you...the notion of "disproof" or falsification only arises after there is (at least somewhat) compelling reason to believe in the possibility of existence.

    How would you know the unicorn is pink if it is invisible.
    Can your unicorn speak english like my unicorn?
    We should get them to hook up


  • Options
    #83
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    How would you know the unicorn is pink if it is invisible.

    Brilliant.... missed that one


  • Options
    #84
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    How would you know the unicorn is pink if it is invisible.

    Can you prove it isn't?


  • Options
    #85
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    robtri wrote: »
    Am I correct in what i believe you to be saying... you are saying that have no evidence that the flu virus cannot be genetically modified to resist change.. and yet with no evidence you believe this fact???

    There is no end of evidence that the flu virus it highly mutable.
    There is no evidence, nor functional theory that I am aware of, which says that this mutability can be limited or prevented.

    I conclude that the notion of this mutability being limited or prevented in a current example of the virus is not supported by evidence.

    I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying that until evidence is found which supports the notion, that we are discussing what amounts to little more than an idea...a notion of what might be, backed by no evidence whatsoever....a bit like the teacup orbiting Pluto or the invisible pink unicorn.

    In those cases, we also cannot prove that they are impossible. We can't even provide direct evidence that they don't exist.

    Do you feel its unreasonable for someone to suggest they don't believe there is a teacup orbiting Pluto?
    here's a link to a new zealand report, of agovernment approved genetically modified virus... it can be done
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2320541
    I haven't once questioned that virii can be genetically modified.


  • Options
    #86
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    bonkey wrote: »
    In those cases, we also cannot prove that they are impossible. We can't even provide direct evidence that they don't exist.

    Do you feel its unreasonable for someone to suggest they don't believe there is a teacup orbiting Pluto?


    I haven't once questioned that virii can be genetically modified.

    Yes I do believe it is unreasonable to suggest then teacup around pluto for many reasons, but that is a seperate question to this discussion, please open another thread if you wish and we can debate that....

    A virus can be genetically modified and if they can create a modified virus vaccine, for the equine flu, which would have to be stable and un changing to a point, to be able to be used, to me this shows it can be done...


  • Options
    #87
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    bonkey wrote: »
    Can you prove it isn't?

    I can show that the evidence to suggest that there is an invisible pink unicorn is quite questionable and I could influence people to believe that it does not exist.
    However I can not prove that it doesnt exist and some people will always cling in vain to the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

    Damn you, I hate these arguements!!:D


  • Options
    #88
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    robtri wrote: »
    Yes I do believe it is unreasonable to suggest then teacup around pluto for many reasons, but that is a seperate question to this discussion, please open another thread if you wish and we can debate that....

    I asked the questions because you asked me if I don't have evidence to suggest something is not so....implicitly suggesting that such a position is flawed. I wanted to see if you felt that in general, or if it was just a position that you disagreed with which merited such a question.

    You've clarified that you don't feel - in general - that no evidence of non-existence is evidence of existence. We don't need a seperate thread.
    A virus can be genetically modified and if they can create a modified virus vaccine, for the equine flu, which would have to be stable and un changing to a point, to be able to be used, to me this shows it can be done...
    The vaccine in question was based on a poxvirus, not on an influenza virus. It shows that virii are capable of being genetically modified...which - again - I would point out I have never questioned. Indeed, I would suggest we ask why a poxvirus was modified for a flu vaccine, rather than an influenza strain used. Would it not suggest that there are reasons (difficulties?) why one would not choose the influenza virus as a base? If poxvirus is easier to work with, then surely if someone wanted to "test" their genetic-modification capabilities, they'd also choose it over flu?

    Finally, vaccines typically deal with inert (i.e. dead) virii or virus-fragments. One reason for this is, unsurprisingly, that there is less risk for complication through mutation - it would require combination with a live, external virus, rather than being capable of mutation on its own. Incidentally, this risk is mentioned explicitly in the article you linked to....that exposure to this vaccine by a human with flu could lead to a mutation of the human flu virus....so even with a poxvirus-based, non-mutable vaccine, the risk of mutation still exists.


  • Options
    #89
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    I can show that the evidence to suggest that there is an invisible pink unicorn is quite questionable and I could influence people to believe that it does not exist.
    However I can not prove that it doesnt exist and some people will always cling in vain to the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.


    Pretty-much exactly my point.


  • Options
    #90
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    I can show that the evidence to suggest that there is an invisible pink unicorn is quite questionable and I could influence people to believe that it does not exist.
    However I can not prove that it doesnt exist and some people will always cling in vain to the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

    If the unicorn is invisible, then it surely can't be pink? It wouldn't be any colour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    bonkey wrote: »
    Pretty-much exactly my point.

    I knew that- just wanted to make an hilarious quip to be honest.
    Good reading though, always interested in conspiracy theories.
    My problem is- we all acknowledge that there is little or nothing that we can do about a bio attack, NGO world take over(look at the helplessness of people after economic crisis).
    So why do we worry ourselves and debate these things ad naseum- if the world is going to end- get a big f**k off loan out of the bank and go sip cocktails in the carribean with some blonde big t*tted women


Advertisement