… everyone seems to be convinced that it is a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’ H5N1 mutates and becomes transmissible between humans. This is not a certainty – indeed, far from it. One good example of a virus becoming *less* deadly is HIV1, which appears to be a lot less virulent in attacking tissues other than t-helpers (i.e. skin and brain) than it used to be back in the 80s, although of course drug therapies are also better.

Furthermore, there’s a perfectly good evolutionary reason for HIV1 to become less deadly. Killing the ecosystem you live in (in the case of a disease: the host species) is bad for you (a lesson we could do well to learn) – the selection pressure on any disease is to become better at transmission but less deadly.

The reason for the wide-spread expectation – `when’ not `if’ – that bird ‘flu shall necessarily hop to humans is that ‘flu is well-known to mutate rapidly. It does that precisely in response to selection pressure to get round its host’s immune defences. If avian ‘flu does hop across to humans, we can expect it to mutate rapidly in ways that make it better at infecting humans: but mutations that enable it to attack humans are not, yet, being selected for.

A preview button, alongside the “Submit Comment” one, would be nice … I’m having to guess what mark-up I can get away with !

According to what I’ve read, the 1918 flu and this one infect deeper in the lungs than normal flu does, and provoke a cytokine burst which is the non-specific immune system trying to cope with a problem.

The cytokine burst is the bit that does the main damage; this causes massive inflammation and leakage into the lungs, which drowns the victim. Limit the cytokine burst and you give the patient a chance to either recover, or die of something other than drowning.

Anti-immune drugs such as are used for transplant patients are probably the most use here, although antihistamines might be slightly helpful. Tamiflu merely inhibits the virus getting out of an infected cell; it cuts the multiplication rate but that is all, it doesn’t kill virus.

Best way to cope with human-transmissible bird flu: try not to get it, until doctors have had a chance to experiment on early victims and work out how to stop the cytokine burst and any other associated problems. If you do get it, take either Tamiflu or Relenza, antihistamines and try to get to a hospital if these aren’t swamped.

Oh, and stay away from quacks and homeopaths.

Unfortunately your web site has type sizes so small that I can’t read them. On a 1024×768 screen this is showing up as about 6 point type.

To read this I had to cut and paste the article into notepad.

Your web site is no good you can’t read it. Please think about using standard font sizes.

Could you not pitch something to your editor along the lines of a ‘layman’s guide to bird flu – what are the risks’? and compile some genuine facts presented in an easy to understand fashion, and market it as such? Get hold of your local hospital’s microbiologist and flatter him into giving an interview or writing an article.

Just a few bullet points would do:

Bird Flu has not mutated into the form most threatening to humans,
There is currently no vaccine, and one cannot be created until such time as the hypothetical mutation occurs,
Tamiflu is a treatment, not a vaccine. It does work against viruses, but like all medicines its effectiveness will vary with individual circumstances,
Surgical facemasks are ineffective
It’s not Tony Blair’s fault
You can’t go blaming the french, either.

Or am I just hopelessly nieve??

rich

Tamiflu is not a vaccine, but if it is given as a credible prophylactic then the distinction is subtle. But -is- it a credible prophylactic?

And of course disease organisms can work around natural or artificial prophylaxis, by evolving. Watch out for the next new AIDS virus that makes rubber perish…

Paul, newspaper proprieters like it much better. But I liken the situation to an information vaccuum which too many editors for my liking are happy to fill with any old tosh to generate sales. And sales is the name of the game, not public information. It’s a well established formula and applied whatever the subject of the news happens to be.
If the “deadly” adjective is used on occasion no-one could reasonably object. But it’s the incessant drip, drip, drip of repetition with the result that so much news reporting lacks any perspective and, frequently, any relation at all to real life. It takes on a life of its own, wrapped up in its own perverted form of reality.
Apparently it’s illegal to incite people to riot. But it’s not illegal to incite panic and hysteria.
It’s patronising, a disservice to the public and thoroughly indefensible.

Anyway, that was somewhat off the flu topic. So I guess I should remind everyone that we are clearly all about to die of deadly avian bird flu so should probably be having fun while we still can.

Another Soviet treatment, for bacterial infections this time, called phage therapy was also common, and reportedly effective, but again has failed to catch on in the West. The more cynical commentators suggest that this is because neither of these ideas are patentable, so pharmaceutical companies won’t bother investing and producing them. It is perhaps more likely that the benefits haven’t stood up to more intense scrutiny, although I don’t know of any clinical trials since the fall of the USSR.

On a different note, everyone seems to be convinced that it is a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’ H5N1 mutates and becomes transmissible between humans. This is not a certainty – indeed, far from it. One good example of a virus becoming *less* deadly is HIV1, which appears to be a lot less virulent in attacking tissues other than t-helpers (i.e. skin and brain) than it used to be back in the 80s, although of course drug therapies are also better.

I don’t want to be an apologist for the “evil media”, but when you take this, combined with non-governmental agencies that don’t depend on circulation for funding — including the WHO, for chrissakes — making public statements to the effect that up to 150 million could die if H5N1 acquires human-to-human transmissibility, surely there’s some merit in reporting this?

Not to gloat or anything, but as one of the (I imagine) few science hacks who at least skims the discussion sections of relevant journal articles when I put together a package, I’m not too uncomfortable with using the phrase “deadly bird flu”.

But then: these are the same editors who’ve told me in the past: “Make it scary. People like that.” So I’m torn. I hafta say, I do genuinely think there’s a bit of a parasitic relationship between the consumers of mass media and a good, terryfing story. People get off on it. Blaming the journalists as being “untrustworthy (although loads of them are)” seems like a bit of a cop-out.

Hi.

As a television news hack on the “bird flu beat” (love the way that rolls off the tongue) I can assure you that any attempt I make to tone down my headlines is swiftly obliterated by editors insisting that “deadly” be added as a prefix to any occurence of H5N1. Although, to be honest, it *is* a deadly virus — just probably not as deadly as Sky et al would like you to believe.

PS — There’s a biotech firm in Russia that says that “alpha-inteferon” applied nasally is an effective prophylactic against contracting all types of influenza. Is this total bollocks? My immunology isn’t up to scratch…

So their science being irrational has an inability to reason and is not of sound mind.

Er.. yes.

I suprised at their honesty.

These discoveries, at the further reaches of quantum physics, provide scientific validation and evidence for a range of psychic and spiritual experiences that rational science had claimed were impossible.

Note the “rational science” – perhaps this is only bad science in the rational sense. Also, “scientific validation” and “evidence” are clearly separate – their form of scientific validation need not, it appears, be evidence-based.

Judging their science by the standards of your particular rational, evidence-based form seems a bit harsh.

After finding my local ‘Rolfing Practitioner’, I thought I’d add my details to the practitioner database. Unfortunately this appears to entail a £32 purchase. Luckily, the site inform me that this will ‘be one of the shrewdest investments you’ll make’. What! – ever? Better than pensions and mortgages? My cheque is in the post.