Medical Experts Speak Out -- SARS Virus Could Be Man-Made and Possibly a Bio-Weapon

News Pundit.net ^ | 4/11/2003 | Douglas Oliver

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

RE: Post #21 Good post. It appears that a there are a lot of folks who are a little teeny bit paranoid on FR!

As to the origin of infectious disease, probably most originated in Africa (where mankind evolved, so there has been a longer association between us and bacteria, parasites, and viruses there than any other locality).

But Southern China is a great place for mixing millions of people , birds, pigs, and other animals- WITH all of their various and sundry maladies- stirring for years, and seeing what comes out of the blender. Also, their medical surveillance and treatment is limited, at best.

Which is probably why annual "Flu" outbreaks (mutations) originate in this area.

I do not see SARS as bioweapon- or at least, I think the probability is very, very low.

[SauronOfMordor]

see my post #60

[bonesmccoy]

Dittos to the borg!

[bonesmccoy]

Bioweapons should not have a 5% mortality rate.

Bioweapons should not have the capability to spread and is should be uniformly fatal to the recipient of the weapon.

Alternatively, another class of weapons could be non-lethal, induce long-periods of illness that require massive resources to address, and then can be prevented in your own nation by immunization.

Neither of these criteria are met by SARS.

SARS is a typical common cold virus that is emerging in China. It happens every generation.

[TheLion]

Bump

[CathyRyan]

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_830794.htm
WHO says killer pneumonia has peaked in China
The World Health Organisation says it believes the spread of a killer pneumonia in China has peaked.

It comes as China announced..... Bwahahahaha! Yeah, right....

[DB]

I never thought it was likely a bio weapon. It is possible it is a Chinese bio engineering experiment gone wrong. Who knows…

[DB]

"SARS is a typical common cold virus"

Since when did the "typical common cold" have a mortality rate of 4% ever? That's one out of twenty-five people dead who gets it... And that's with modern medical care...

[bonesmccoy]

Since when did the "typical common cold" have a mortality rate of 4% ever? That's one out of twenty-five people dead who gets it... And that's with modern medical care...

No, SARS is killing people in areas with communized/socialized healthcare. In a socialist system, the doctors who are mediocre are reinforced. The smart ones are out of work because they order too many tests and do too much to help the patients (which costs the bureaucrats money).

And, yes, by the way, when new viruses routinely emerge, they are usually more virulent and potentially cause more mortality.

But, after replicating and mutations creep into the new strain, the virus becomes weaker. In addition, the population begins to build immunity.

[CathyRyan]

Did your Ox get gored?

[duk]

I don't believe SARS as a weapon is really relevent to us common folk. The stats still stand as reported, though most likely they are seriously underreported.

So what happens when/if the spread of SARS holds to some of the FR posts,(10,000 by end of April)? The death rate won't have as much of an impact as the fear of the further spread of SARS. Should we make the hard decisions now to limit the spread in the U.S.A.,or wait untill we have to shut all of America down for several weeks? HK is at this moment pondering this very question, and wondering if they have already passed the point of no return.

[riri]

Did your ox get gored?

Huh?

But, after replicating and mutations creep into the new strain, the virus becomes weaker. In addition, the population begins to build immunity

Ummmm...typically now long is this process? Are we talking days, weeks, months, years?

[bonesmccoy]

You are essentially asking the question which forms the basis for all of the field of evolutionary molecular biology. For each organism, there is an enzyme called "polymerase". There are RNA and DNA polymerases and there are reverse transcriptase (which was first identified in Human Immunodeficiency Virus) which converts from RNA to DNA.

Polymerases sometimes make errors in transcribing the genetic code. This introduces errors. The introduction of those molecular errors creates the a natural mutation rate for different organisms (depending on the "fidelity" of the polymerase).

So, I can not answer your question with respect to SARS because I have not seen the genetic sequencing for the coronavirus involved in SARS.

I would hope that molecular biologists working for the US DOD would have characterized these viral particles already.

If DOD doesn't have those kinds of physicians/scientists already working the problem, I volunteer!

[bonesmccoy]

not sure what you mean...

[Henchman]

Have to agree to the possibility of a bio engineering mess and oops. Most of the Chinese "Asian flu" is created because of their propensity for raising fowl and pigs together. The avian diseases evolve in the pigs and are then easily transmitted to man. But throwing Clamydia into the mix puts a kink into the equation.

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

I think you're confusing antibiotics with vaccines. There are vaccines to MANY viruses: smallpox, chickenpox, mumps, measles, etc. However, antibiotics are generally ineffective against viruses and are usually used for bacterial infections, not viral.

[chilepepper]

Uh Oh! My paranoia is showing...

my nightmare is that SARS IS NOT so much a developed "bioweapon", rather is a laboratory developed COVER for a real "bioweapon" which has the same symptoms. In other words, the SARS deathrate is "only" 4% for the normal population, but surprise, surprise, it suddenly shoots up to a 50% deathrate among our soldiers in Iraq, or in Los Angeles, New York, London, Tel Aviv etc...

the bad guys launch the real bioweapon and then claim they didn't do anything and the damage gets blamed on the SARS..., particulary nasty if we let our guard down.

kudos to GWB for treating this seriously and allowing quarantine at the border.

[theFIRMbss]

>Bioweapons should not have a 5% mortality rate.

Check out the WHO page
listing mortality stats.
All over the globe

the death rates are much
higher than just five percent.
The numbers get skewed

because the figures
for the US are grossly
different from the world's.

(My suspicions are
that this issue divides up
people who can see

reasonably, say,
six months into the future,
and people who can't.

If you have cases
that almost double each week,
then even a small

mortality rate
adds up to huge numbers in
a very few months.

This is one issue
where I'm praying nay-sayers
have picked the right side.)

[bonesmccoy]

The mortality rate is incorrect.

If you compare the number of fatalities/number hospitalized, then you will calculate an artificially elevated mortality rate.

The fact is that there are probably cases which predate the first admission to the hospital. There are other cases which are undiagnosed, like being exposed and successfully mounting an immune response.

You can't quantify the number of people exposed and that never became ill.

That's why you can't discern the actual penetration of the virus into a population and you can't discern the actual mortality rate.

I hold to my comments stated on this forum multiple times.

SARS is like many other cold viruses that periodically appear. Initially, the virus is rather virulent and creates severe symptoms. As the infection spreads, the virus replicates and becomes less virulent. The virus spreads further and eventually creates enough immunity in the population to not create a massive problem.

While we should be concerned about the disease, it does not warrant absurd levels of hysteria.

[theFIRMbss]

>While we should be concerned about the disease, it does not warrant absurd levels of hysteria.

Let's the two of us
make an effort not to get
Zotted this summer.

If we're both still here
(in all senses of that phrase!)
in about six months,

the numbers of sick
and dead will make it clear which
of us is correct.

I hope we're both here,
and I hope I'll be the one
admitting defeat!