# Bird Flu



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

The President just addressed the Bird Flu and the United States plan for a possible pandemic. He is requesting 1.2 billion dollars for vaccine to protect some 20 million Americans (presumably Health Care Workers and Republican Donors). 

I think this is a scare tactic. The 'Terrorist Threat Alert' moving up and down is no longer working. We need a new bogey-man to keep us afraid. The President has suggested that an outbreak of Bird Flu could require the military to put in place a quarrantine. That is Martial Law by any other name. 

HHS Secretary Leavitt said the President's goal is "the capacity for every American to have a vaccine in the case of a pandemic, no matter what the virus is.&#8221;

That goal is unreachable and unaffordable. We've got a new War folks .... War on Viruses. 

Can't help but think how this ties back into America weakness in Science. And a stubborn refusal to look calmly at Random Mutation and Natural Selection (aka Evolution); "Every American vaccinated against Every Virus" What an idiot.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 1, 2005)

I don't know if it's a scare tactic, but if he appoints "Heckuva Job Brownie" to head up the commission, I'll be terrified!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

This virus and posability of a pandemic is far more dangerous then anything a terrorist could cook up.  I would rather spend money to defend myself against this stuff any day.  The number one killer of humans throughout history has always been sickness/disease.  We've held the plagues off for a while, but evolution happens.  In my opinion, in this time of growing _overpopulation_, diseases are the last thing that we should underestimate/ignore.


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 1, 2005)

Capability to vaccinate all Americans sounds good to me.  Even if it doesn't go down like some think it will.  I have no problem with money being spent on preventative measures.  It's better than the potential alternative.


----------



## CrankyDragon (Nov 1, 2005)

Gotta keep the focus off the war...
Gotta keep the focus off the war...
Gotta....


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think this is a scare tactic. The 'Terrorist Threat Alert' moving up and down is no longer working. We need a new bogey-man to keep us afraid.



And I think you are just looking for another excuse to bash the president with rather strange conspiracy theories.

Have you looked at the fatality rates for bird flu? They scare the hell out of me. I think it is over 50 percent of the humans that get this thing die. If this thing mutated to a form that was easily transmitted from human to human, can you imagine just how many people would die? Think about how many people you know catch the flu every year. Then take the fatality rate and apply it to them.

If this is just a conspiracy theory scare tactic, then there are a lot of goverments in on the scam. Japan is scared silly over the idea. Have you seen the measures they are taking here, in Asia and now in Europe to contain this thing?


----------



## Ronin Moose (Nov 1, 2005)

Friends, put the politics aside and spend a few minutes researching what an outbreak could do to us.  This could take place during anyone's watch, Republican, Democrat or whatever.  These virus know no political party; they just spread, mutate, multiply and KILL.  I'm all for anyone in power stepping up to the plate and making the effort, and decisions required to keep us from suffering the fate of so many nations without the resources we have.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And I think you are just looking for another excuse to bash the president with rather strange conspiracy theories.
> 
> Have you looked at the fatality rates for bird flu? They scare the hell out of me. I think it is over 50 percent of the humans that get this thing die. If this thing mutated to a form that was easily transmitted from human to human, can you imagine just how many people would die? Think about how many people you know catch the flu every year. Then take the fatality rate and apply it to them.
> 
> If this is just a conspiracy theory scare tactic, then there are a lot of goverments in on the scam. Japan is scared silly over the idea. Have you seen the measures they are taking here, in Asia and now in Europe to contain this thing?


 
I would have to note that a liberal site that I frequent was discussing bird flu and its grave threat FAR BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS. Now, obviously I'm no fan of most of the current Admin's policies or I wouldn't be on the liberal site so often, but this is not made up for political reasons. That doesn't mean that many politicians of BOTH parties won't try to take advantage of it, but that fact of human nature doesn't make the threat less real.

Recommended reading: "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry. It is about the 1918 Influenza which killed far more people than WW1 (1914-1918). This is a real threat. It may not occur THIS year, or next year but most scientists say that it is inevitable. It would be hard to slam the response at the Federal level (particularly FEMA) after Katrina, and then criticise PREEMPTIVE action on an even graver threat.

Like many people, I'm a mix of both conservative and liberal positions, but, despite my strong dislike for many of this Administration's actions, not everything is a party issue. 

BTW, not going to give the name of the liberal site because I don't want to get THAT political on an MA forum. I can be close friends with and respect individuals who have completely opposite views from myself, but I recognize that many cannot.

On edit: I've read about, and vaguely remember, the Carter Admin's. rush to vaccinate during the Swine Flu scare of the 1970's. Despite being dead wrong, I think they took the right course of action. Same with the Bush admin. They may be wrong about it hitting soon, but they would be right about taking action. The stakes are too darn high and our capabilities are not substantially greater against a virus than they were in 1918 (this from several epidemiologists quoted in several books that I have read).


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And I think you are just looking for another excuse to bash the president with rather strange conspiracy theories.
> 
> Have you looked at the fatality rates for bird flu? They scare the hell out of me. I think it is over 50 percent of the humans that get this thing die. *If this thing mutated to a form that was easily transmitted from human to human*, can you imagine just how many people would die? Think about how many people you know catch the flu every year. Then take the fatality rate and apply it to them.
> 
> If this is just a conspiracy theory scare tactic, then there are a lot of goverments in on the scam. Japan is scared silly over the idea. Have you seen the measures they are taking here, in Asia and now in Europe to contain this thing?


 
And what are the experts saying about the possibility of the virus mutating from an animal-to-human contagion to a human-to-human contagion? 

The term I heard used was "Very Low".

Is it possible that the H5N1 virus could so mutate? Sure. Is it also possible that the H5N1 virus could mutate into an inoccuous virus, I would have to assume yes.

So, the experts don't know, and can't predict. And the President is launching a 7 Billion dollar campaign to prevent something that may never happen. In a recent News Conference (how many of those has he held), the President gave a more detailed answer to a question about the H5N1 virus, than he has answered to anything else. Hell, he almost sounded like he had a Clintonian understanding of this topic. (Go check the video/transcript yourself).

I find it symptomatic that the President has such a strong command of a Phantom Menace. There are many more things that our nation should be addressing.

This does not mean that we should ignore pathogens. Secretary Leavitt (HHS) should be working on flu virus monitoring and planning (hopefully better than Brownie). But this does not yet rise to the level of the President. 

It has been speculated that the next step for the American Empire is to impose Martial Law. After the flooding of New Orleans, the President has asked for centralized control of the National Guard (taking it away from the governors), and the President has announced that an outbreak of 'bird flu' might require the Department of Defense to enforce quarrantine. That's beginning to sound an awful lot like Martial Law. 

Being skeptical of the Government that might have created and released Lyme Disease and West Nile virus, is, I think prudent. Especially where viruses are concerned.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Being skeptical of the Government that might have created and released Lyme Disease and West Nile virus, is, I think prudent. Especially where viruses are concerned.


 
Is there any credible information about this?  I'm serious, I keep my tin hat in the closet where its easily donned.  I've read some crazy stuff about this, but I am still skeptical.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

Look for the book "Lab 257".

Off the Eastern end of the North Fork Long Island, there is Plum Island. In the late 40's & 50's the Military created a bio-lab to study the possibility of using germs to destroy the enemies food supply. One of the founding scientists was a German biologist who had worked with ticks as a method of transmission. 

At some point, the Military withdrew its operations (leaving behind the actual viruses and germs they were working with) and the facility is now run by United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA does not have nearly as good security as the military. Additionally, the USDA has to fight harder for funding, and is more likely subject to political whims as compared to the military. 

Lyme Disease and West Nile Virus (as well as a less well know duck virus) all originated in geographic proximity of this labratory.

As to how credible the information is ... <<shrugg>> ... but, it is not unreasonable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Look for the book "Lab 257".
> 
> Off the Eastern end of the North Fork Long Island, there is Plum Island. In the late 40's & 50's the Military created a bio-lab to study the possibility of using germs to destroy the enemies food supply. One of the founding scientists was a German biologist who had worked with ticks as a method of transmission.
> 
> ...


 
That book has now been added to my reading list.  Thanks Mike.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And what are the experts saying about the possibility of the virus mutating from an animal-to-human contagion to a human-to-human contagion?
> 
> The term I heard used was "Very Low".
> 
> Is it possible that the H5N1 virus could so mutate? Sure. Is it also possible that the H5N1 virus could mutate into an inoccuous virus, I would have to assume yes.


 
What has people worried is that this virus's genome is very close to the genome of the Spanish Flu.  Scientists have already created the "Bird Flu" in labs by changing a few base pairs.  How will it mutate?  Good Question.



> So, the experts don't know, and can't predict. And the President is launching a 7 Billion dollar campaign to prevent something that may never happen. In a recent News Conference (how many of those has he held), the President gave a more detailed answer to a question about the H5N1 virus, than he has answered to anything else. Hell, he almost sounded like he had a Clintonian understanding of this topic. (Go check the video/transcript yourself).


 
7 billion on a threat that could kill millions in this country alone vs hundreds on of billions on a (false) threat of Saddam's WMD.  One one hand, its a step in the right direction, on another, its a gross misreading of the actual dangers.  Imagine what we could do to our health care system if we spent all of the money that we spent in Iraq on it?  Imagine the amount of people that could be saved from the terrorist germs?



> I find it symptomatic that the President has such a strong command of a Phantom Menace. There are many more things that our nation should be addressing.


 
Definitely the "Cry Wolf" syndrome...



> It has been speculated that the next step for the American Empire is to impose Martial Law. After the flooding of New Orleans, the President has asked for centralized control of the National Guard (taking it away from the governors), and the President has announced that an outbreak of 'bird flu' might require the Department of Defense to enforce quarrantine. That's beginning to sound an awful lot like Martial Law.


 
That is one thing that people need to realize.  If this thing does break out, we will see martial law.  All of the steps are in place.  By a series of executive orders, FEMA could suspend almost all constitutional protections in the face of this emergency.  The military would sweep in and we would have an instant police state.  The President would have dictatorial powers.  How comfortable are you in knowing that it is very possible that President Bush, through FEMA and a Bird Flu pandemic, could be handed dictatorial control over our country?  

:uhohh: 

upnorthkyosa

ps - personally, if Bird Flu really broke out, I might be so scared, I wouldn't even care...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

BushCheney as a dictator scares the hell out of me. 

Richard Nixon as a dictator does not. 


Yes, spending money on the prudent preparation is a good thing. I think, we all thought, that the Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA were doing just that concerning New Orleans. But, mostly, we weren't think about it. If we were, I think most of us trust our government to be doing the things it is supposed to do; we expect the Emergency Management Administration to actually be preparing to Manage Emergencies.

Here, there is a department of Health and Human Services. Don't we all just expect that HHS is watching and planning for these types of outbreaks? Isn't that what HHS is supposed to be doing? Watching for TB outbreaks in the inner cities; monitoring anti-biotic resistant germs; and planning for the flu outbreaks. 

I expect the President to get a 3 minute a month update on the status of these things, right up to the point they become a *real threat *(i.e. SARS).

That President Bush has taken a keen interest in the H5N1 virus is scary to me. As an alcoholic, I understand this behavior; fixating on something that is a potential (but not yet actualized) probelm, while ignoring real problems all around. Drunks are real good at that. Making Mountains out of Molehills.

Mr. President .... Let Secretary Leavitt deal with H5N1. Please Turn Your Attention to the al Anabar Province, and the debt you have saddled the country with, not to mention the illegality of those secret torture camps in Eastern Europe. Those are real problems, Mr. President. We can deal with the Birds later.

Also, did you hear how atmospheric sampling since 911 has discovered many new pathogens that are very closely genetically related to anthrax and bocciliiliium (you know the word I'm trying to spell). We are surrounded by germies and virusies that are genetically close to dangerous stuff. Remember, someone said humans share 95% of the DNA of a bannana ... how close something is to something else is not a safe measure of its danger, I think.

* * * * * * * * *

P.S. Can you believe some one is still defending Michael "You're doin' a heck of a job" Brown. I got an anonymous private note saying The Guard couldn't mobilize fast enough after Katrina either. Good God man ... the head of FEMA was a friggin Show Horse Judge. That's who you want managing your major disasters?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 2, 2005)

Unfortunately, after the past 5 years, I no longer trust any information that comes from the Bush Administration, and that includes public health information.  (The Office of National AIDS Policy website does not even list condoms as a preventive strategy).  And the national response to the hurricanes does not give me confidence that we are up to managing any public health emergency.

In my opinion, we're on our own.  Wash your hands a lot, use antimicrobial hand lotion, wear a mask on the subways, stay home, buy Tamiflu from Canada.  The cavalry will not be coming.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> BushCheney as a dictator scares the hell out of me.
> 
> Richard Nixon as a dictator does not.


 um... Any dictator scares the hell out of me.....any!



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I expect the President to get a 3 minute a month update on the status of these things, right up to the point they become a *real threat *(i.e. SARS).


 And yet criticise these "3 minute a month updates" when the threat actually comes to term (i.e. Katrina). 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> We can deal with the Birds later.


 NO you can't. Later is too late....the mortailty rate of this virus holds hard fast proof that "later" is not something to be considered in conjunction with this virus and probable pandemic. I'm not the type to scream pandemic and run and hide, but this possability and the agreement between scientist of its probablility to occur, well......



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Also, did you hear how atmospheric sampling since 911 has discovered many new pathogens that are very closely genetically related to anthrax and bocciliiliium (you know the word I'm trying to spell). We are surrounded by germies and virusies that are genetically close to dangerous stuff. Remember, someone said humans share 95% of the DNA of a bannana ... how close something is to something else is not a safe measure of its danger, I think.


 Thats why we have scientist to make these decisions. Your comparing DNA which because of its immensity isn't a good choice here. The difference between 95% and 100% of DNA is quite huge. Also, because other "germies" are out there doesn't mean we should ignore this one does it? I mean, you did quote "W" as saying all persons against all viruses right?

I'm not trying to protect the president or anything, but you blame him for not being prepared or acting quickly enough (i.e. Katrina) then jump him for becoming prepared in the face of deadly viruses? The war has nothing to do with this, this is something that needs attention with or without a war in Iraq.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> And yet criticise these "3 minute a month updates" when the threat actually comes to term (i.e. Katrina).


 
Actually, I do not criticize the 3-minute-a-month updates that occurred prior to Katrina. I criticize that the execution of the plan (or the lack of execution of the lack of plan) after Hurricane Katrina Hit. Whatever planning is in place, should be executed competently. It was not. That deserves criticism. 

I am not blaming the President for not being prepared. Someone other than the President should have been prepared for Katrina (Michael Brown - Michael Chertoff). I have blamed the President for lack of execution. The guy was playing a guitar while an American City was drowning. Please!



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> NO you can't. Later is too late....the mortailty rate of this virus holds hard fast proof that "later" is not something to be considered in conjunction with this virus and probable pandemic. I'm not the type to scream pandemic and run and hide, but this possability and the agreement between scientist of its probablility to occur, well......


 
And if Later never comes? 

At the moment. Scientists think it is far more likely that, in the instance of H5N1, it will not become human-to-human transmittable.

And please site your scientist who claims the *probability* of mutation from Bird-to-Human transmission to Human-to-Human transmission. All reports I have seen said this mutation is *possible* at a "*very low" *probability.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> *Thats why we have scientist to make these decisions.* Your comparing DNA which because of its immensity isn't a good choice here. The difference between 95% and 100% of DNA is quite huge. Also, because other "germies" are out there doesn't mean we should ignore this one does it? I mean, you did quote "W" as saying all persons against all viruses right?


 
The President is a scientist now? You are aware that it was President Bush who made the decision to invest 7 billion dollars to provide 'Every American' a vaccine against every virus'. The President is not a scientist. He thought 'Intelligent Design' should be taught in the classroom. 

And actually, the quote about Every American Protect Against Every Virus was Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, speaking directly on the President's initiative.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to protect the president or anything, but you blame him for not being prepared or acting quickly enough (i.e. Katrina) then jump him for becoming prepared in the face of deadly viruses? The war has nothing to do with this, this is something that needs attention with or without a war in Iraq.
> 
> 7sm


 
Of course it needs attention. It needs attention from Health and Human Services. It needs attention from the Centers for Disease Control. It doesn't need attention from the President.

We can't ramp up a full scale assault on every possible threat (Unless you own stock in Halliburton or HCA) Priorities must be set.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And if Later never comes?
> 
> At the moment. Scientists think it is far more likely that, in the instance of H5N1, it will not become human-to-human transmittable.
> 
> And please site your scientist who claims the *probability* of mutation from Bird-to-Human transmission to Human-to-Human transmission. All reports I have seen said this mutation is *possible* at a "*very low" *probability.


 Ever heard the old addage, "Better Safe Than Sorry"? If "later" never comes then what have we lost? We have learned more about these viruses and spent money improving the infrastructure of vacination in america. Then ask yourself what if "later" does come and we aren't ready....hundreds of millions of people dead....thats what we have lost then. The willingness to gamble with hundreds of millions of people's lifes is not somethin we can afford, regardless of the actual outcome.

I would love to see your sources for "Scientists think it is far more likely that, in the instance of H5N1, it will not become human-to-human transmittable". Thats simply not true and I have yet to see anyone say that its more likely not to become transferable. Possible with a probability is all I said. You just stated you heard it was probable (very low) yourself. Its a fact that this virus has already proven deadly for humans and is known to mutate....why exactly should we ignore those facts and do nothing? There is actually two mechanisms this virus could use to become human to human. One is a slow mutation, the other is a much quicker reassortment event, in which genetic material is exchanged between human and avian viruses during co-infection of a human or pig. Reassortment could result in a fully transmissible pandemic virus, announced by a sudden surge of cases with explosive spread. (World Health Organization)



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President is a scientist now? You are aware that it was President Bush who made the decision to invest 7 billion dollars to provide 'Every American' a vaccine against every virus'. The President is not a scientist. He thought 'Intelligent Design' should be taught in the classroom.


 I didn't say that, I was refering to your own decision that this virus is of no consequence worthy of no more than a passing thought. Remember the president has his "3 minute a month" updates from the leading scientists...are you suggesting he made this decision without cause?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course it needs attention. It needs attention from Health and Human Services. It needs attention from the Centers for Disease Control. It doesn't need attention from the President.


 Lets see, where does "Health and Human Services", "Centers for Disease Control" get their funding? What your saying is that the president shouldnt' concern himself with a virus that has met two of the three conditions of a pandemic?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> We can't ramp up a full scale assault on every possible threat (Unless you own stock in Halliburton or HCA) Priorities must be set.


 Priorities? So hundreds of millions of peopels lives is simply not a top priority in your book? This is simply not a "possible threat", it has allready taken the lives of americans and over 150 millions birds worldwide. This is no longer a simply threat but is now action. We must do something, even if it never infects another human, the consequences of the death of that many of our poultry could be pretty devistating itself.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> ....why exactly should we ignore those facts and do nothing?


 
I'm going to type this real slowly.

I am not advocating that the United States "do nothing". I am saying that this threat does not rise to the level of Presidential attention. 

The President is a)allowing himself to be distracted from more important matters and b) working to cultivate fear in the populace.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Priorities? So hundreds of millions of peopels lives is simply not a top priority in your book? This is simply not a "possible threat", it has allready taken the lives of americans and over 150 millions birds worldwide. This is no longer a simply threat but is now action. We must do something, even if it never infects another human, the consequences of the death of that many of our poultry could be pretty devistating itself.


 

Pissing match on.

Priority = Yes .... Memo saying "Al Qaeda determined to Strike in US" 

Priority = Not So Much .... Some birds got a virus that may (or may not) jump to human's

Pissing Match Off.


P.S. 7starmantis quoted some language from the World Health Organization. An excellent resource. Material found here:

http://pandemicflu.gov

Although, it is spooky that the government has this web site ... it does link to WHO, CDC & HHS


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2005)

On yet another occasion I agree somewhat with Mike. I think a large part of this "Bird Flu" thing is hype.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17091275%5E1702,00.html



> "At any point in time, it could be any influenza virus, not necessarily a bird flu (that hit the country), so we need pandemic planning all the time," Dr Haikerwal said.
> 
> "We need awareness. We need response planning, especially getting GPs into the front line.
> 
> ...



http://www.the-health-gazette.com/h...ve-medicine/bird-flu-hype-harmful-not-helpful



> I have already suggested that the near hysteria concerning "bird flu" results from media hype. I have also suggested that the hype is being well fed by people who seek to gain politically and financially from it. I should add that various people are also seeking some personal recognition by making statements to the media. Indeed, some of the people to have come out of the bureaucratic woodwork to comment add absolutely nothing new and merely seem to want to see their names in print.
> 
> It is time to put an end to this nonsense. The more extreme the hype and the longer it is allowed to flourish, the greater the harm it causes. It does this in various ways, but let's just consider three.
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm going to type this real slowly.
> 
> I am not advocating that the United States "do nothing". I am saying that this threat does not rise to the level of Presidential attention.
> 
> The President is a)allowing himself to be distracted from more important matters and b) working to cultivate fear in the populace.


 C'mon now. Your assuming that first, the president is being distracted, second that more important things are being overlooked, and the reasoning behind his actions is to create fear. This is my point exactly! Lets face the facts and leave the suppositious conspiracy theories out of it. No one is saying the avian flu is deffinitely going to wipe out mankind or anything, but why is it so many people feel they are quite qualified to determine what is and is not the presidents business? Your speaking of presidential attention and saying attention should be focused by CDC and such....where do you think they get their funding?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Pissing match on.
> 
> Priority = Yes .... Memo saying "Al Qaeda determined to Strike in US"


 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Priority = Not So Much .... Some birds got a virus that may (or may not) jump to human's


 Wrong, over 150 million birds have been destroyed because of a virus that has allready jumped to humans and has killed over half of those infected by it. What may (or may not ) happen is that it becomes transmitable from human to human. The mere fact that this could occur needs attention. The devistatingly large effects of this type of pandemic require action. Your suggesting that the president need not be concerned with a virus that meets 2 out of three conditions for a pandemic. Again, why do we feel so qualified to determine what the president should or should not know or spend time on? I'm not the type suport hype and yes there is much hype here, but hype doesn't negate true facts and possible threats. Anyone really know what happens to a human who contracts this virus?

"Unlike normal seasonal influenza, where infection causes only mild respiratory symptoms in most people, the disease caused by H5N1 follows an unusually aggressive clinical course, with rapid deterioration and high fatality. Primary viral pneumonia and multi-organ failure are common. In the present outbreak, more than half of those infected with the virus have died. Most cases have occurred in previously healthy children and young adults." (WHO)

7sm


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm going to type this real slowly.
> 
> I am not advocating that the United States "do nothing". I am saying that this threat does not rise to the level of Presidential attention.
> 
> The President is a)allowing himself to be distracted from more important matters and b) working to cultivate fear in the populace.



You are still with the silly paranoid conspiracy theories, eh?

There is a chance that this thing could mutate to a form easily transmitable from human to human. Maybe it is low, but influenza does have a nasty tendancy to mutate- which is why they have new versions every year at least. This particular one kills an increadible percentage of the humans that get it. Should it mutate, millions of Americans could die. There is that chance. And you are saying that that it is not worthy of presidential attention?!?!?!?!?!?

Honestly, if you would listen to people like Jonathan Randall and put aside your desire to bash this president we might have a decent discussion. But you are sounding like those people that say AIDS was created to kill off blacks.

Have you bothered to look at the world and how it is reacting to this? Democrats such as Kennedy and Shumer are saying the president is not doing _enough_ and you are saying that he is doing this to create fear and push for martial law??!?!??!

The health minister of Australia has hinted that if bird flu breaks out in Indonesia in force they may stop direct flights and prevent people who have visited there from entering the country _and yet_ you say this is not a reasonable potential for presedential thought?!?!?!?

Let go of your rabid hatred for Bush and your desire to bash him for a while and try to understand why so many _liberal_ folks are backing anything like this that may help us in the worse case scenario.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2005)

Alrighty then. I'm wondering if all those who heard the October 4, Press Conference of President Bush would Raise their hands. I did. Let me tell you what struck me about that conference.

Most of the questions were about Ms. Harriett Miers, who at the time was generating quite a bit of buzz. The President performed fairly well answering questions. Not great, but he was able to avoid stepping on his own tongue. (i.e. there were no obvious Bushism). Then, this question came up.



			
				White House Press Conference 10/4/2005 said:
			
		

> Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?


 
This reporter, and this question were obviously a plant. This question about bird flu came out of nowhere. 

For those who think that only someone with 'rabid hatred' for the President could suppose such a thing, please do a search on Jeff Gannon, a former Male Prostitute that was allowed into the White House press room to lob softball questions at the President for a Right Wing Blog.

But what really was amazing .... with Harriett Miers on the front page of every paper, and insiders around Washington on pins and needles over Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, the President gave this answer.



			
				White House Press Briefing 10/4/2005 said:
			
		

> THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.
> 
> The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.
> 
> ...


 
Now, that is a cogent, intelligent answer. Worthy of (dare I say it) Bill Clinton. George W. Bush is not a policy wonk. He doesn't read department plans until two in the morning, (with or without an intern under the desk).

I will say again, I heard this news conference live. I was very impressed by the President's performance over all (53+ minute press conference) and on this answer in specific. Despite the fact that this answer sounds like President Bush is bringing the news of H5N1 to the world community, and not following the world community, as some have suggested. 

I have told others, its seems to me that the President is more versed on what is going on with aspects of H5N1 than he is with what is going on in Iraq or Who is saying What about covert agents in the White House.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This reporter, and this question were obviously a plant.



Oh my Gawd! The conspiracy has spread to the media! They are all in on it! There is no place to run from this conspiracy to make bird flu sound like it is dangerous instead of a minor worry!

So, we should not worry about bird flu anymore. Great! And here I was worried about the mortality rate over 50 percent. But I guess WHO is just a plant by the Bush administration to divert attention away from the war.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Oh my Gawd! The conspiracy has spread to the media! They are all in on it! There is no place to run from this conspiracy to make bird flu sound like it is dangerous instead of a minor worry!
> 
> So, we should not worry about bird flu anymore. Great! And here I was worried about the mortality rate over 50 percent. But I guess WHO is just a plant by the Bush administration to divert attention away from the war.


 
And you think I'm wearing a tinfoil hat..... <chuckle>. 

I post this link, not because I expect *you* to read them Don, but maybe some others might. 

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


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And you think I'm wearing a tinfoil hat..... <chuckle>.



Yep. To immediatly think that someone is a plant is a bit of a stretch in any case. Some people think Gannon was a plant. Some people think the goverment blew up the dams in New Orleans to kill black people. Where is the proof? To accuse someone of that is not the same as them being guilty. Nor is it proof that there was a plant in this case.

But the idea that Bird Flu is not a worry for the world and being used to divert attention.... that is silly. Take a look at the measures other goverments are doing to deal with this matter. The US response is mild. Proposing increasing funding for some projects and making it easier for vacines to reach market is hardly the first steps of martial law as is being discussed here.

What I really fear is people like you who are so agenda driven to destroy the president that they will oppose anything he proposes. If you looked at the matter without the filters of your hate, you would see that it is a concern for the world. Need I remind you that Flu mutates pretty fast and this one kills over half the people that get it. Did you know that you can infect people with the flu 24 hours or so before you start showing any symptoms? Can you imagine what those facts lead up to in this age of jet travel?

I hope that this is just a case of the _entire world_ worrying over something that does not come to fruit. But considering the dangers and possibilities, the measure the president has proposed is the least we should do. I would not stop international air travel at this point, but the measures such as limiting the legal liabilities of vacine makers that rush untested products to market when a epidemic hits is a damn good idea.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I will say again, I heard this news conference live. I was very impressed by the President's performance over all (53+ minute press conference) and on this answer in specific. Despite the fact that this answer sounds like President Bush is bringing the news of H5N1 to the world community, and not following the world community, as some have suggested.
> 
> I have told others, its seems to me that the President is more versed on what is going on with aspects of H5N1 than he is with what is going on in Iraq or Who is saying What about covert agents in the White House.


And yet you blindly follow your agenda of bashing this president. Even in the face of what you refer to as "impressive performance" it can only be so because of media spys and strange conspiracy therories. Also it seems that his positive handling or "performance" about this issue is only further proof of his mishandling of things?

Seriously, if your dislike for Bush didn't come across as an agenda your willing to follow without regard to anything else, we may have more discussion or take your points more seriously.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> What I really fear is people like you who are so agenda driven to destroy the president that they will oppose anything he proposes. If you looked at the matter without the filters of your hate, you would see that it is a concern for the world.


 
Come on, Don, you are barely attacking my citizenship and patriotism there. You can do better. Come on', call me a fascist, call me a traitor.

"Some people think Gannon was a plant" .. 

A Gay Prostitute sleeping in the White House. Good God man! .. Do you think the President is a Sub? 

A Gay Prostitute with Press Credentials for a news service that did not exist at the time. 

I bet he claimed liberals hate the President too. That seems to be sure way to get a radio program on access to the White House.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> And yet you blindly follow your agenda of bashing this president. Even in the face of what you refer to as "impressive performance" it can only be so because of media spys and strange conspiracy therories. Also it seems that his positive handling or "performance" about this issue is only further proof of his mishandling of things?
> 
> Seriously, if your dislike for Bush didn't come across as an agenda your willing to follow without regard to anything else, we may have more discussion or take your points more seriously.


 
Take my point of view seriously, or don't. You're choice.

Yes, it was an impressive performance. I had never heard him speak so clearly. Of course, the bar is set kind of low, isn't it?

As to if it is media spys or conspiracy theory; can you please remove your blinders. The administration has played these games for 6 years; hand picking audience attendees so they are 'friendly', having questions pre-screened for top officials, rescinding press credentials from those who ask questions they don't like. These aren't theories, they are common occurences for the current Administration.

You want conspiracy theories ... try this one.

What is the recommended anti-virus for avian flu?............Tamiflu
Who holds the patent on Tamiflu ..................................Gilead
Who was a past Chairman of the Board of Gilead .............Donald Rumsfeld

Where have we seen this pattern before?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Take my point of view seriously, or don't. You're choice.


 Your point of view is riddled with suppositions and what you seem to think is "the best way" and "most likely". I never take supositions and asumed likely events as serious facts.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As to if it is media spys or conspiracy theory; can you please remove your blinders. The administration has played these games for 6 years; hand picking audience attendees so they are 'friendly', having questions pre-screened for top officials, rescinding press credentials from those who ask questions they don't like. These aren't theories, they are common occurences for the current Administration.


 Its easy to start throwing words back at people after they say them to you, but that doesn't make a point really. Speaking of blinders, if you seriously think "hand picked audience attendees" and "pre-screened questions" is something new with this administration your terribly wrong and quite naive. This has been going on since time began throughout all administrations and partisan lines. However it does not make your consipracy theories any more valid. Your trying to attribute some conspiracy theory to this behavior, simply not the case unless you want to include all administrations (yes even including your beloved Clinton Administration).



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> You want conspiracy theories ... try this one.
> 
> What is the recommended anti-virus for avian flu?............Tamiflu
> Who holds the patent on Tamiflu ..................................Gilead
> ...


 Well, your actually quite wrong here. There are four (4) drugs used to treat this type of flu virus. What you speak of as Tamiflu is the drug oseltamivir. Tamiflu is simply not the only perscription carrying Oseltamivir. It seems you must ask who is recomending this. Your sources are left off so I must simply assume. Also, oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza) treat both A & B while amantadine and rimantadine treat just A. So it seems there are several choices for treatment of this virus, your claim that Tamiflu is the only one, or the "recommended" one is simply not true.

Sorry to bust your conspiracy theory up, but like I said before, you can't look at only one piece of evidence and make your whole case. You _must_ look at the whole picture before claiming such theories.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

I'm sorry, 7starmantis, how much stock did you say Donald Rumsfeld holds in Roche?


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 4, 2005)

It is inevitable .... something will strike sometime...

When is the question...


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, 7starmantis, how much stock did you say Donald Rumsfeld holds in Roche?


"Let me ignore your post and facts to insert my own distorted conspiracy theory based on assumptions that fit my own belief system".


7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> It is inevitable .... something will strike sometime...
> 
> When is the question...


 
When is a valid question. Another valid question is what? 

And we can not prepare to defend against everything, everywhere, everywhen. 

H5N1 should not be at the level of the President at this time. CDC, HHS, yes. President, No.

Currently, this is the 'fear' being pushed by the Administration. Fits a pattern; yellowcake, aluminum tubes, tunnels, flu.

Be afraid, be very afraid.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Currently, this is the 'fear' being pushed by the Administration. Fits a pattern; yellowcake, aluminum tubes, tunnels, flu.
> 
> Be afraid, be very afraid.



Seems your pushing more fear and scare tactics here in this thread than I've heard from the Administration as of yet. Offering factual evidence of a possiblity we need to concern ourselves with is not pushing fear, pushing fear is offering up presumed conspiracies and assumed agendas that seem more intent to create fear than do anything else.

The releasing of information to the genral public by the administration does not a scare tactic make. We have a right to know whats going on and what is being considered. I guess you would rather have a closed administration where we only hear whats going on after the fact?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Seems your pushing more fear and scare tactics here in this thread than I've heard from the Administration as of yet. Offering factual evidence of a possiblity we need to concern ourselves with is not pushing fear, pushing fear is offering up presumed conspiracies and assumed agendas that seem more intent to create fear than do anything else.


 
The Bush administration offered 'factual evidence' of Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger (except it wasn't factual, it was planted with a friendly reporter).

The Bush administraiton offered 'factual evidence' that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq as proof of centerfuge assembly required for nuclear weapons (except the aluminum tubes were a) unsuitable for centerfuge construction and b) exact specification for short range missle construction).

The Bush administration offered 'factual evidence' that al Qaeda was planning attacks on major banks in New Jersey (except the evidence was three years old and had no indication of planning an actual attack).

The Bush administration offered 'factual evidence' that a terrorist attack was planned on a tunnel in Baltimore recently (except the evidence was a single, unsubstantiated report from a questionable source in Denmark).

Fool me once ... shame on you. 
Fool me twice ... shame on me. 

And did you actuall say 'closed administration' with a straight face? The Bush administration has increased the rate of classifying document by a factor of ten. 

Wow....


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

stick em up, this is a thread hijack


----------



## Xequat (Nov 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And we can not prepare to defend against everything, everywhere, everywhen.


 
True, but shouldn't we try?  Your opening argument (and I use that term loosely) was that Bush is an idiot.  Mike, you can do better than that.  Do you think that the goal should just be to save a certain number of people?  Because if the President had said "Hey, we can only save so many people from this flu, so let's just set our goals at 20 million' and then claim victory when we reach that goal, then what would your criticism be?  It would be that no matter how unrealistic, the President should always try to save everyone which is exactly what I'm saying now.  

Remember SARS?  Yeah, me neither, but what could have happened if action hadn't been taken?  We'll never know.  But if the President were not taking action now, then just as many people who are criticising Bush now would be saying things like "There's a pandemic coming and the do-nothing President hasn't taken a single step to protect us from it.  Be afraid."  I don't ever want to be asking the question "What if the President had only taken some action against the avian flu?"

It doesn't matter what Bush does or doesn't do, he will be criticized for it.  Some have talked about the Katrina relief and people complained about how the President was somewhere else.  If he had gone there, he would have been criticized for taking a photo-op and wasting resources for his security whent hose resources could be used for recovery.  Either way, his opponents and enemies are going to complain.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 4, 2005)

i agree we can't try to fight against everything...that is why I don't care what he does about the situation....i do care that everyone thinks the 9 billion is from the government....yeah and how do they get paid our tax dollars...they cut taxes and spend 9 million....hmm money is going to be a problem somewhere. If people support Bush in this they should support a tax hike to pay for it....how many do you think are willing to do that....

I really can't stand this whole administration and I understand the basis of the conspiracy theory because with Cheaneys dealings and all the business ventures the administration are tied to. Not to have a plan would be dumb though....to make such a big deal about the plan...yes....that is to get focus off of the recent blunders in my opinion. Tell the hospitals, major health organizations etc how you want to deal with it IF it happens. Not strike fear into people....

Sorry for the ramble..in a hurry to get this typed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2005)

Given the choice, if I had to worry about terrorists or germs, I would pick germs hands down.  I have a good friend who happens to have a phd in public health.  He says that bird flu or no bird flu, the US is not capable of responding to ANY health crisis.  In a way, then, this "scare tactic" if it can be called such, is a breath of fresh air into something that really is important.  

I am absolutely no fan of the Bush Administration's policies, however, if the presidents focus on this somehow makes the US more capable when dealing with germs, I'm not going to look this gift horse in the mouth.

Or we can politicize this and make sure absolutely nothing gets done...

upnorthkyosa

ps - Mike, ya got some good points, but I'm siding with what I think is the greater good this time.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

"In the 18th century there was no such thing! Nobody'd ever imagined such a thing -- no sane person anyway. Along comes this doctor...Semmelweiss, I think. He tries to convince people... other doctors mostly...that there are these teeny tiny invisible "bad things" called germs that get into your body and make you...sick! He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy...crazy? Teeny tiny invisible whaddayou call 'em?...uh, uh...."germs"!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

Xequat, my original argument was not that Bush is an idiot. I don't often employ ad hominems, if they can be avoided. 

My original argument is that Bush is 'hyping' the potential of a pandemic flu outbreak to create a new thing to be afraid of. 

What action are you inferring the President took that somehow reduced the impact of SARS? I don't know what actions he took, and what effect it had on SARS. But perhaps SARS is a good comparison. You see, SARS really crept up from out of nowhere. It spread fairly rapidly to two continents. The medical organizations around the world took action, and minimized loss of life and aftermath. And since then, where has SARS gone? <shrugg> Could it come back? Are we adequately prepared?  Don't know.

upnorth, please don't assume that I am thinking that H5N1 is something that we shouldn't be preparing for and studying. My argument is that this does not rise to the level or Presidential attention. Sure the CDC & HHS should have the money they need to do the job, but that should be a normal course-of-government thing. I too am much more afraid of germs and viruses than terrorists. Germs and viruses are a much bigger threat. 

A president with approval ratings at 35%, leading a country in which 67% of the population think the country is headed in the wrong direction needs something to rally support ... or at least demand subservience. Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff have pushed the 'Orange Alert' too many times for that to be credible (Did you see Aaron Brown's Nexis of Terrorism & Politics report?).

H5N1 could be a real problem; tomorrow, next year, or never. 

A major concern of mine is that while the government is focusing on H5N1, a different item (such as SARS or HIV) arises from a different angle, and as a nation we are flat-footed because Bird Flu has sucked all the energy out of good health care policy.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

Found a new item for the 'factual evidence' of the Bush adminstration. 

Larry Wilkerson, assistance to the Secretary of State Colin Powell related this item on NPR yesterday. The CIA would not comment or refute Mr. Wilkerson's claim.

A CIA analyst reported to Director Tenet that Iraq was attempting to acquire software to pilot UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) from a company in Austrailia. 

Director Tenet brought this intelligence to the attention of Vice President Cheney (we all heard the stories). 

The CIA analyst later learned that Iraq was trying to purchase a different product from the Austrailian company that manufactures the UAV software. In the course of the negotiations on the other product, the Austrailian company solicited Iraq to purchase the UAV software. The transaction never went through. 

The analyst provided updated information for Director Tenent. 

Director Tenet did not inform the Vice President of the corrected intelligence information. 

I never heard or read the retraction from the Administration. 

Oops!


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Xequat, my original argument was not that Bush is an idiot. I don't often employ ad hominems, if they can be avoided.
> 
> My original argument is that Bush is 'hyping' the potential of a pandemic flu outbreak to create a new thing to be afraid of.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> "Every American vaccinated against Every Virus" What an idiot.


 :idunno:

On the subject of "hyping" your not willing to look at anything other than your own view of it. Your providing your own reason for his (Bush's) addressing of this issue. We can't put our belief of why someone does something as fact without some serious evidence. The issue of him "hyping" this seems moot since it seems he must have "hyped" many other countries and agencies as well. This issue is serious and needs serious attention, to criticize the administration for its "hyping" of this issue and in the same breath also criticize the administration for "classifying information" is contradictory.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> upnorth, please don't assume that I am thinking that H5N1 is something that we shouldn't be preparing for and studying. My argument is that this does not rise to the level or Presidential attention. Sure the CDC & HHS should have the money they need to do the job, but that should be a normal course-of-government thing. I too am much more afraid of germs and viruses than terrorists. Germs and viruses are a much bigger threat.
> 
> A major concern of mine is that while the government is focusing on H5N1, a different item (such as SARS or HIV) arises from a different angle, and as a nation we are flat-footed because Bird Flu has sucked all the energy out of good health care policy.


 However you havent offered a base of why this is should not rise to the level of presidential attention. What is wrong with the president being concerned with this issue? Your assuming that because he addresses this issue than he is ignoring other issues. Seriously, that is pretty far fetched. what has or is rising from a different angle? You seriously believe that because action is being undertaken for this issue that another issue will be completely ignored? How exactly has bird flu sucked all the energy out of good health care policy?

I understand your concern, but it seems you are concerned without cause. What is your base for believing these theories and supositions that we will be unprepared because of current action?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> On the subject of "hyping" your not willing to look at anything other than your own view of it. Your providing your own reason for his (Bush's) addressing of this issue. *We can't put our belief of why someone does something as fact without some serious evidence.* The issue of him "hyping" this seems moot since it seems he must have "hyped" many other countries and agencies as well.


 
7starmantis ... this is getting a bit old.

You said in the paragraph above "*we can't put our belief of why someone does something as fact without some serious evidence*". Now, I've put your word in bold font twice. Pay attention now. 

You are asking for evidence for my claim the that the President is 'hyping' the material. I will list the evidence I have presented numerically here, so you can be sure what evidence I am putting forward. 

1. Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.

2. Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq can only be used for Nuclear Centerfuges.

3. al Qaeda had plans to bomb major banks in New Jersey.

4. A terrorist threat on the tunnels in Baltimore Harbor

5. Iraq's plans to acquire UAV software.

That's 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 instances of 'hyped' intelligence. Only reason number 5 has any questions surrounding it (it just surfaced yesterday). Please, dispute any of these 'facts'. 

My claim that the H5N1 virus, and the Presidents understanding of this virus *fits a pattern* displayed in the above factual reports. 

And, one more time ... just in case someone decides to actually read what I post. The H5N1 virus is a serious health issue that does need to be watched closely, and planned for ... *but* ... it does not rise to the level of the President of the United States. Yes, CDC, HHS and the WHO should be working on plans and policies to prepare for a pandemic caused by H5N1 or any other virus (cuz we will get hit from somewhere unexpected). 

The behavior of the President is that of an untreated alcoholic. He is focused on, and obsessed by something over which he has no power or control, while items within his circle of control are falling apart. 

That I think President Bush is a criminal, should be impeached, thrown out of office and into jail, on top of being an idiot has *nothing whatsoever to do* with these claims.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You are asking for evidence for my claim the that the President is 'hyping' the material. I will list the evidence I have presented numerically here, so you can be sure what evidence I am putting forward.



And then you listed five things that you can't prove that the president hyped. Can you prove that the president knew these things were not true? Oh yeah, maybe in hindsight we know that they were more of a concern that they were. But can you prove duplicity and fraud?

And getting back to the subject of bird flu, can you prove that there is no threat to the nation?

This just in....

The World Health Orginization (an obvious Bush stooge) has said that an outbreak of bird flu that can be transmited from human to human could kill 
*at least* three million people in Southeast Asia alone.

Are you saying that something that deadly is either,

A) a fraud dreamed up by a conspiracy to make the president look good

or

B) not worthy of the President's attention- after all 3 million in Asia alone is not that much to worry about.

If you would only put aside you hatred and desire to bash the president, you may understand why even democrats such as Ed Kennedy are screaming about the dangers of bird flu. But if you are so eager to damage Bush that you would ignore the obvious dangers, then you are potentially leading to the deaths of millions of Americans. It is sad that someone would be willing to risk all those deaths merely in his effort to score politacal points.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And then you listed five things that you can't prove that the president hyped. Can you prove that the president knew these things were not true?


 
Oh, Dear God ! ! ! 

1 - Are you ****ing kidding me? *Can't prove the president hyped? * http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=446434&postcount=346

2 - If by 'not true' you mean lie ... I never claimed that hype and lie are synonyms.

If you wish, I will be more than happy to discuss the many, many things the President has told us that were not true.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If you wish, I will be more than happy to discuss the many, many things the President has told us that were not true.



Great! Let us start with this idea that you are trying to spread that bird flu is a myth and that it is not a threat to *millions* of people and thus not worthy of the presidents attention.

Accusations are not proof. You have been battered by this point before. Show the proof. And then show how this threat is not credible. 

Again, WHO, the CDC, Romania, China, Japan and many other countries are making vast efforts to combat this threat. So prove that all of them are part of the conspiracy to make Bush look good.

I am glad that the president is making this effort. The things he is pushing may not be needed for this threat. But hearing that he is pushing to prevent drug companies from being sued for rushing untested vacines in an emergency does my heart good. For things like cancer and standard things, drug companies have to go through a process that takes years. That is ok for most cases. But when there is something that is killing as many people as this thing may, they may have to rush vacines to market that do not go through all those prececures. If they stand to be sued as easily and as frivoulously as some American trial lawyers (now calling themselves things like 'consumer rights advocates') have, they either look at being put out of business or letting *millions* of Americans die.

Even if bird flu was not the _very legitimate threat_ that organizations such as WHO has stated, then just letting drug companies rush vacines to the populace when the goverment has determined that there is an epidemic is a damn good thing IMO.

Put aside you hate and your urge to bash the president aside for a awhile and you can see how the message you send can possibly kill millions just to further your crusade. Any responable person would put aside that hate and stand with the president. Ed Kennedy thinks this is a threat and you can't call him a friend of Bush. So by pushing the crazy conspiracy theory that you do at the threat of killing millions or people, you only marginalize yourself and all those that share your cause of anti-Bush uber alles.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Great! Let us start with this idea that you are trying to spread that bird flu is a myth and that it is *not a threat* to millions of people and thus not worthy of the presidents attention.


 
Donnie .... Yoo-hoo Donnie ... 

I never made a statement, claim, on insinuation that the bird flu (or any other virus or germ) is *not a threat*. 

Once again, I said it is not a threat worthy of the attention of the President. The threat should be monitored, and planned for by the appropriate government agencies; the Centers for Disease Control, and Health and Human Services (and there are probably other governement agencies that should be involved). 

Fortunately, all of my claims are back there in the thread, so you can go back and re-read them, if you need to remember what I actually said. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Accusations are not proof. You have been *battered* by this point before. Show the proof. And then show how this threat is not credible.


 
Donnie, I really don't think I have been 'battered' at all.

And as for proof ... there are 2,045 families that are not going to have children return from Iraq, because the President hyped (or lied about) the quality of intelligence concerning purchase of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger, or how the aluminum tubes can only be used for centerfuges.

Are the deaths of those soldiers not credible? 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Put aside you *hate* and your *urge to bash* the president aside for a awhile and you can see how the message you send can possibly *kill millions* just to further your *crusade*. Any responable person would put aside that hate and stand with the president. Ed Kennedy thinks this is a threat and you can't call him a friend of Bush. So by pushing the crazy conspiracy theory that you do at the threat of killing millions or people, you only marginalize yourself and all those that share your cause of anti-Bush uber alles.


 
And Donnie, .... this, well, this is what the call an 'ad hominem' attack .... The whole paragraph attacks 'to the man', rather than to the argument. 

Now, if by 'hate' and 'urge to bash', you mean that I 'oppose' the President, you would indeed be accurate.

But, I really don't think that my words, or the message I send could, in any way 'kill millions' ... I mean, they are just words after all. At best, and my hope is, my words will cause people to actually think about what they see going on around them.

And, gee Donnie.... the United States, what some call a 'Christian Nation' is currently at war with Iraq, a country with a majority of Muslem people. Do you think you could be a bit more careful about throwing around the word 'crusade'. I mean really, it is a word that has some really bad connotations, especially when people are dying. 

I wonder why people think that just by mentioning the name 'Kennedy', it tars the whole argument. The Senator has served his country for more than 40 years in the Senate. Donnie, you enlisted, right, you know what service is about. I would think that his service would earn a minimum of respect. But, leaving that aside ... 

Senator Kennedy sits on the Senate Committee for *Health*, Education, Labor and Pensions. Because of this, and because the Congress and not the President allocate Federal Funds, I would hope that Senator Kennedy is aware enough of the potential threats of bird flu to appropriately fund the correct government agencies; the Centers for Disease Control and Health and Human Services.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2005)

Great couple of posts, Don. What Michaeledward is doing is fairly common. See with hindsight we can see that some of these things were not as big as we thought, we can see that there was some mistakes made in the intellegence gathering process and now, Michaeledward is trying to implant some kind of intent behind these things. That is what is so unprovable. The facts that you (michaeledward) present aren't false in actuality, just false in the intent you paint them with. The world is not a perfect place and there will be mistakes made both by politicians and those who are in the field gathering information and handling orders. To hold one person responsible for all of these and try to implant some devioius intent behind it, is just absurd, regardless of who we are trying to pin it on.



			
				michaeledwards said:
			
		

> You are asking for evidence for my claim the that the President is 'hyping' the material. I will list the evidence I have presented numerically here, so you can be sure what evidence I am putting forward.


This is evidence of many things, none of which are "hyping". To show proof of hyping you must prove intent....that my friend is something you have failed to do. No need to get mean, we are simply discussing. I'm simply calling you on your implications of intent by the president, your "proof" shows nothing of intent.



			
				michaeledwards said:
			
		

> Once again, I said it is not a threat worthy of the attention of the President. The threat should be monitored, and planned for by the appropriate government agencies; the Centers for Disease Control, and Health and Human Services (and there are probably other governement agencies that should be involved).


Since it seems you have ignored this over the course of the thread, allow me to offer it again. Why is it you feel yourself as qualified to make the decision on what the President of the United States spends time on? Obviously you dont think that because leaders of many other countries have taken notice and started action, that this rises it to Bush's attention. What would? Oh, I guess when it becomes a pandemic and (according to WHO) "No one will have immunity should an H5N1-like pandemic virus emerge". This means that once it becomes transmitable between humans the sudden surge of deaths will be huge. Once this starts its too late....so I guess then its ok for it to be brought to the attention of the president? Once its too late for him to do anything. Wait a second, I see a pattern here.....
Katrina = "shame on this poopy president for not doing something sooner"......
Bird Flu = "shame on this poopy president for wanting to do something sooner". 
:idunno: 

How can you explain the point at which these things should be brought to the attention of the president? It either has to be before it happens or never. Your point doesn't make sense! Of course the president should spend time on it.....why should you be aware of it and not him? You assuming again (great stretch here) that because it is brought ot his attention it takes away from other things.....thats a huge jump to make, and one I have seen nothing yet to prove.



			
				michaeledwards said:
			
		

> And Donnie, .... this, well, this is what the call an 'ad hominem' attack .... The whole paragraph attacks 'to the man', rather than to the argument.


Yes we would never stoop to that would we!!


			
				michaeledwards said:
			
		

> That I think President Bush is a criminal, should be impeached, thrown out of office and into jail, on top of being an idiot has nothing whatsoever to do with these claims.





			
				michaeledwards said:
			
		

> "Every American vaccinated against Every Virus" What an idiot.


....well at least not directly!

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

7starmantis ... I'll explain 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Katrina = "shame on this poopy president for not doing something sooner"......
> Bird Flu = "shame on this poopy president for wanting to do something sooner".


 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency had a plan (on paper at least) on what it is supposed to do in the event of a natural disaster ... any generic natural disaster. Fortunately, one of the most predictable natural disasters was a Hurricane hitting New Orleans.

You see.... the President was not involved in the day-to-day grind of FEMA's plan, nor should he have been. 

What happened with Katrina is the plan was not executed, because FEMA director Michael 'You're doin' a heck of a job, Brownie' Brown was more worried about getting his dinner reservations in and whether he should wear a tie or not.

The point is FEMA planned and did not execute. President should hold that incompetence accountable. 

Concerning the Bird Flu, the President should keep his hands out of the soup. Let the Centers for Disease Control & Health and Human Services plan for what may, or may not happen. They are the appropriate government agencies *at this time*. 


* * * * * * * * * * * * 
 One last thought .... 

I feel qualified to have an opinion on what the President focuses on because I am a citizen and I am a voter.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Concerning the Bird Flu, the President should keep his hands out of the soup. Let the Centers for Disease Control & Health and Human Services plan for what may, or may not happen. They are the appropriate government agencies *at this time*.



You seem to be saying that the president it involved in day to day micromanagement of the situation. That is not the case. He is proposing increased funding for vacine programs and reducing legal hurdles for drug companies. The CDC, etc, can't do that on their own. So how are you seriously expecting them to make the legislalative decisions that only he can make?

Honesetly, you want the president to not take action over a threat that could kill millions of Americans and yet take him to task for not doing enough when Katrina hit? How should he get less involved now and yet be guilty for letting the city and state goverements, as well as the federal system, do their job without interferance?

The president is supposed to lead the federal agencies and plan policy. That is what he is doing now. He is not supposed to let the aagencies choose what they are supposed to do. He has to let them do things on a day to day basis, but not for things like this. If we were in the midst of an epidemic and he tried to miromanage, he would be wrong. But to see a problem that WHO, etc are saying is a major threat to American lives, how on earth can you expect him to not propose things like easier ways to get vacines to the public in a hurry?

Oh, and I will not call you a derisive nickname such as "mikey" in retalitation for your trying to get my goat with your using "donnie." I think it a cheap shot by someone unable to debate without such tactics and will not stoop to your level. But I am going to point out how you need to use it instead of facts and logic. If you want to use facts and logic, I will be pleased to debate you on it. But it seems you can't. Such a shame.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 5, 2005)

=============
 Mod. Note. 
 Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Admin


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You seem to be saying that the president it involved in day to day micromanagement of the situation. That is not the case. He is proposing increased funding for vacine programs and reducing legal hurdles for drug companies. The CDC, etc, can't do that on their own. So how are you seriously expecting them to *make the legislalative decisions that only he can make*?


 
Don Roley, the President does not make legislative decisions.




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Honesetly, you want the president to not take action over a threat that could kill millions of Americans and yet take him to task for not doing enough when Katrina hit? How should he get less involved now and yet be guilty for letting the city and state goverements, as well as the federal system, do their job without interferance?


 
I take the President to task for not holding accountable the Federal Agencies involved in the poorly executed response to Hurricane Katrina.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> The president is supposed to lead the federal agencies and plan policy. That is what he is doing now. He is not supposed to let the aagencies choose what they are supposed to do. He has to let them do things on a day to day basis, but not for things like this. If we were in the midst of an epidemic and he tried to miromanage, he would be wrong. But to see a problem that WHO, etc are saying is a major threat to American lives, how on earth can you expect him to not propose things like easier ways to get vacines to the public in a hurry?


 
The first few sentences of this paragraph are accurate. 

I am contesting that the Presidents leadership concerning bird flu, and H5N1 specifically, is micromanaging at too great a level. I am proposing the current use of the Presidential 'Bully Pulpit' is to create fear, to keep the populace submissive. 

Again, see the excellent report 'The Nexis of Terrorism and Politics'.




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Oh, and I will not call you a derisive nickname such as "mikey" in retalitation for your trying to get my goat with your using "donnie." I think it a cheap shot by someone unable to debate without such tactics and will not stoop to your level. But I am going to point out how you need to use it instead of facts and logic. If you want to use facts and logic, I will be pleased to debate you on it. But it seems you can't. Such a shame.


 
There are several points on this paragraph. 

re: Name Calling 

You insinuate I am not a 'responsible person'
You claim I am a 'threat to millions'.
You claim I am 'rabid'.
You accuse me of having 'filters of hate'.
re: facts and logic
You are not debating, you are attempting to frame the arugment. You are trying to make this discussion about me, and how I am; irresponsible - threat to milliions - because of my - rabid - filters of hate.

You call for facts of hype or hyperbole. But when I list them, they go unaddressed, except to say "you can't prove *ill will*'. Well, maybe I shouldn't have to prove ill will. Maybe we should all be able to see the *ill results* of the policies I have listed. 

Further, if the President was persuing these claims with the best intentions, he should be held accountable for the incompetence of his judgements. If George Tenet was so demonstrably wrong on yellowcake, and aluminum tubes, why was he given the *Presidential Medal of Freedom*.​ 

So, here's a review,


Facts Presented by michaeledward.Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake ore from Niger.
Aluminum tubes imported to Iraq can only be used for centerfuges.
Iraq attempted to purchase UAV software from Austrailia.
2049 United States service members have died in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld stands to profit greatly from increased demand for Tamiflu.
Jeff Gannon was a gay prostitute given White House Press credentials.
Edward Kennedy has served in the Senate for over 40 years.
​Facts disputed or refuted by Don Roley and 7starmantis.****

​


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2005)

OK guys, lets all take a deep breath and relax......... Now, isn't that better? Ok, to continue lets see...


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Concerning the Bird Flu, the President should keep his hands out of the soup. Let the Centers for Disease Control & Health and Human Services plan for what may, or may not happen. They are the appropriate government agencies *at this time*.


 I dont see how the president is putting his hands in the soup. Youre correct; they are the appropriate agencies and are doing their job. The only thing the president has even moved towards is giving them more ability to do said job. He is not getting involved in "the soup" or daily operations of any of these agencies. Your trying to make much more out of this than it really is....you know the old adage: Mountain out of a mole hill? Thats whats going on here. There is no verifiable proof or evidence that the president has done anything more than offer up increased funding for these agencies to do a job that needs doing. Take everything else away from this and you will see, look at this one incident......he's not interfering like you implicate. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am contesting that the Presidents leadership concerning bird flu, and H5N1 specifically, is micromanaging at too great a level. I am proposing the current use of the Presidential 'Bully Pulpit' is to create fear, to keep the populace submissive.


 Ok, I understand this, but your not doing a very good job of providing requested evidence of such. How exactly is proposing increased funding in any way micromanaging? You want to nail him so bad for something that you are reaching too far. What exactly has he done that could be considered micromanaging?

Also, the use of his "bully pulpit" to create fear and submission from the populace is not only unfounded and unsupported, but reeks of conspiracy theorists. Is he creating fear in you? He's not creating fear in me. Maybe you should poll several million people to see if indeed he is creating fear before you start making wild claims like this. Then you need to provide proof of intent. Something I have been asking you about all thread and something you have been ignoring all thread. Proof of intent is needed to make your claims even close to verifiable. As of yet, you have failed to offer any facts or proof of intent by the president or any members of this current administration to create fear for the sole purpose of making you submissive. Next we must look at what we are being kept submissive to. What is it that he needs to use fear to make us submit to? These are claims that are riddled with personal bias to a point that they dont hold much water at all. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Facts Presented by michaeledward.
> Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake ore from Niger.
> Aluminum tubes imported to Iraq can only be used for centerfuges.
> Iraq attempted to purchase UAV software from Austrailia.
> ...


 First, lets not make this a personal agenda here. These "facts" prove nothing about intent or maliciousness. Where is that proof? Oh, and while we are on the subject of these "facts" lets narrow down your list. The number of service men and women who have died in Iraq, while terrible has nothing to do with this discussion, so we'll remove that one. Donald Rumsfel stand to profit nothing currently form an increase for tamiflu which is only one drug among many that could be used against bird flu. Jeff Gannon's service or lifestyle has nothing to do with this discussion either, as does Kennedy's service in the senate. So now we are left with:

Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake ore from Niger.
Aluminum tubes imported to Iraq can only be used for centerfuges.
Iraq attempted to purchase UAV software from Austrailia.

What exactly do these prove? Lets keep all of them....what does that prove? You *must* show intent if you want to verify your claims of malicious creation of fear to keep us submissive. So far, that is completely lacking.

7sm


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Found a new item for the 'factual evidence' of the Bush adminstration.
> 
> Larry Wilkerson, assistance to the Secretary of State Colin Powell related this item on NPR yesterday. The CIA would not comment or refute Mr. Wilkerson's claim.
> 
> ...



I dont mean to sidetrack the thread but I just gotta say... 

I hope to GOD we get a Liberal President in office next time around, because its going to be _more than amusing_ to watch you guys backpeddle when these types of Inteligence mistakes come up in their term, and instead of condeming them you guys make excuses for why they are ok... or just honest mistakes.

:shrug:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake ore from Niger.
> Aluminum tubes imported to Iraq can only be used for centerfuges.
> Iraq attempted to purchase UAV software from Austrailia.
> What exactly do these prove? Lets keep all of them....what does that prove? You *must* show intent if you want to verify your claims of malicious creation of fear to keep us submissive. So far, that is completely lacking.


 
Why *must* I show intent?

Are not results sufficent?

Claims made. Actions Taken. Claims proven false. 

We are stuck providing for the Actions Taken. (In Iraq, 2000+ dead, 15000+ injured, 300 Billion Dollars, Federal Credit Card Maxed Out).


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why *must* I show intent?



Because you are not saying that these were mistakes, you are saying that these are cases of hype. Hype is a matter of intent. 

And in the case of bird flu, this is not hype. Again, take a look at the way foreign goverments are dealing with this. They can't all be part of this vast, right wing conspiracy. You accuse Bush of using the bully pulpit to create fear in the populace. Hell, I was worried months before he made these announcements. And a lot of other people are worried as well.

(As an aside- have you ever seen pictures of people having to be pushed into crowded trains in Japan during rush hour? Consider the fact that you can infect other people 24 hours before you start showing signs like a runny nose or coughing and how easily the flu can be transmitted in a train like that and you can see why the Japanese goverment is scared silly about the idea of a flu that kills over half the people that get it.)

I applaud the president for taking action in the face of this threat. Even if bird flu nevers explodes like we fear, if he gets the legal protection for those rushing untested vacines during an emergency we are a bit better protected for something else coming later. The CDC, etc can't do that. But the president can propose legislation and it is good to see him do so.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2005)

An epidemic of overreaction:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,1462855.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Im not really worried about the "bird flu" per se. We have ALWAYS been at risk for a pandemic. My guess is that when it eventually does happen there will be little to no warning. 

What I do think we need is a general/comprehensive plan for dealing with a pandemic, which I think the President is on the right track for.

I do find it amusing though how some folks want to flog the government for being unprepared at one turn and then say that preparations are part of a conspiracy at the other.......


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2005)

http://www.doctorsiegel.com/on_bird_flu_fears.htm


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2005)

Of course none of my "doubting the hype" means that preparations shouldnt be being made. We need to be prepared because someday this probably will happen. (I wonder how many other "bugs" are floating around out there that are getting zero attention?) The president is doing his job concerning our safety IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

I would like very much for the President to turn his attention to our safety. There's this 'cough' that has descended on many of the people who have returned to New Orleans. Perhaps, that could use some attention, eh? 

I know, I know, I'm a looney nut bird ... Haven't I read that EPA has said everything is AOK. After all, they are the government agency that is supposed to handle this stuff, right? And, they did such a bang up job certifying the air was OK to breath at Ground Zero after 911 ... and that turned out just great, right? I mean, here we are four years later, and its not like the workers at ground zero are experiencing any problems, right? Right?  O.K. Then, well never mind. 

It is so much nicer to have the President reading every report about H5N1 so he can be prepared for this Phantom Menace. 

I guess, it would just be nice if occassionally he would read a newpaper (preferably with articles from someone other than JudithIrving MillerLibby).


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Of course none of my "doubting the hype" means that preparations shouldnt be being made. We need to be prepared because some day this probably will happen. The president is doing his job concerning our safety IMO.



Agreed. The world has been worried about things that have been (in retrospect) to have been hyped like Ebola, West Nile Virus, etc. The medical community gets worried about things like these. That is their job- to think about and discuss worse case scenarios. Thankfully, most of the time there really is not all that much to worry about. But we only know that after the fact.

But sometimes it is not an unfounded fear. Being prepared for an outbreak of something like this is just good policy.

The proposals laid out by the president can help in more than just this case. I keep harping back to the idea of giving protection to companies that rush vacines that have not gone through years of tests to combat epidemics because it blows my mind that there isn't that type of protection in place already. 

Americans sue at the drop of a hat. And they win a lot of those cases as well. You only have to convince 9 out of twelve people who are too stupid to wiggle out of jury duty that there may possibly be a link between a vaccine that was not fully tested and the thousands of cases of cancer years later by people that took it. If you vacinate millions of people, then that number of thousands is not any different from the normal percentage that get cancer (or anything else you care to use as an example) but it sounds convincing to a jury.

And as an aside, for a ploy that is supposed to fix our attention on it and away from other matters, this does not seem to be panning out. After the initial announcements, Bush really is not doing much in public about this. What is going on is doing so among the medical community and halls of goverment and not on the news.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

New York Times 11/6/2005

Douglas Jehl

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi

It will be an interesting read tomorrow.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2005)

Link to bird-flu???

:idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2005)

A link to evidence that the Administration may have knowingly exaggerated, hyped, and / or distorted to further the cause for an invasion of Iraq.

Of course, it could just be the tinfoil hat ... right?

I wonder how many feathered, webbed-footed, quacking animals some would have to see before they could recognize it as a duck.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2005)

The bottom line here is that our "hype" or "worrying" about these things, like e-boli and such is many times the very reason the fears dont come to pass. Addressing issues brings action and this action which is so often percieved as unfounded by those who dont understand it is often what saves lifes. Addressing the issues is what needs to be done. Critizing anyone, including the president, for doing so is argumentative.

7sm


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Addressing issues brings action and this action which is so often percieved as unfounded by those who dont understand it is often what saves lifes.



Good point. A good example is the millenium bug. We knew there was a problem, we worried and worked at it and in the end there was not much damage done. In retrospect, it may seem we worried too much. But we don't know what could have happened had we done nothing.

I can kind of see how this is going to go tommorow. There will be a story released that Mike will scream, 'See! See! PROOF that ....' and those that actually read it will say, 'no...no PROOF here.' Those that read it will probably be outnumbered that get sidetracked by the volume.

But then, the thinking person would have to ask is there any proof of hype here? There may be mistakes. But to say that the president is hyping this to divert attention is rather silly. For one he is not doing much that is atracting the media attention over this. For another, there are a heck of a lot of groups and goverments doing a lot more. Are they part of the conspiracy?

It is sad that we can't deal with a very serious situation rationally and put the hatred and the agendas aside. This thing could kill millions and I find it sad that Mike is trying to convince us that it really is not a worry just so that he can bash the president yet again.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2005)

I think hes trying to associate the "lies about Iraq" with the ongoing conspiracy that bird flu is a part of...tin hat stuff.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think hes trying to associate the "lies about Iraq" with the ongoing conspiracy that bird flu is a part of...tin hat stuff.


 It's all part of the same conspiracy, man.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2005)

Don Roley .... perhaps when you land in the United States, you will see what kind of attention this is getting from the President's attention. Yesterday, I heard about two people who got sick on the other side of the world. You know, I just don't think two people getting sick over 10,000 miles away is news. Now when compared to what goes on every day around this country. 

7starmantis ... I missed the Presidents detailed explanation of ebola and the threats it presents.

Tgace & sgtmac_46 ... it is representative of a *pattern* of behavior (as opposed to a direct link). Isn't that something police officers use to make determinations about situations when dealing with citizens?

Don't worry though ... the bird flu doesn't seem to be working. Look for either a) an New Credible Terrorist Threat or b) a the capture of a major al Qaeda terrorist (from the hidden prisons in Poland, eh?).

The channel will change soon enough. Or as that New York Times guy said, the 'Narrative will have to change'.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don Roley .... perhaps when you land in the United States, you will see what kind of attention this is getting from the President's attention. Yesterday, I heard about two people who got sick on the other side of the world. You know, I just don't think two people getting sick over 10,000 miles away is news.



Are you honestly trying to say that the president controls the news????

And I have been hearing a lot about people who get sick in all corners of the world. So much for your idea that it is just something spun up by the president. If you watch the news, you might have heard about the guy they buried last month who got it from eating a chicken egg. Even if this thing does not mutate, that alone is a big threat to everyone who eats eggs. And do you know just how big an economic loss this could be?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don't worry though ... the bird flu doesn't seem to be working. Look for either a) an New Credible Terrorist Threat or b) a the capture of a major al Qaeda terrorist (from the hidden prisons in Poland, eh?).
> 
> The channel will change soon enough. Or as that New York Times guy said, the 'Narrative will have to change'.


 So when news is coming out about things going on around the world, the president is hyping to make us submissive. Yet, if there is no news coming out about current affairs, the president is sitting on his *** playing his guitar.
:idunno:
You can't criticise both sides of action, that only shows your blind allegance to this agenda of yours to bash the president regardless of the reality of your claims. There is no correct action by the president in your eyes, its either "shame on him for doing too little" or "shame on him for doing too much". Your agenda is getting painfully obvious, bash the president regardless of what he does.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yet, if there is no news coming out about current affairs, the president is sitting on his *** playing his guitar.


 
The 'Current affair' when the President was sitting on his *** playing guitar, was the a Major American City was drowning.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You see.... the President was not involved in the day-to-day grind of FEMA's plan, nor should he have been.



The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.



> The 'Current affair' when the President was sitting on his *** playing guitar, was the a Major American City was drowning.



Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.
> 
> 
> 
> Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.


 I think i've made this point before about Michael's posts.  It really doesn't matter what the president does, it's about "attack, attack, attack".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.
> 
> Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.


 
I always thought that the best plans are laid *after* the events for which they are designed to effect.

So, for those who aren't temporaly challenged, how'd that FEMA plan work out?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I always thought that the best plans are laid *after* the events for which they are designed to effect.
> 
> So, for those who aren't temporaly challenged, how'd that FEMA plan work out?



First part- I do not understand at all. Are you trying to be silly? You plan for things when you have an idea of what you are dealing with.

Second part, off topic. And of course the planning for flood control in New Orleans had been in place for a good, long time. The whole thing is a very interesting read in how various agencies and jurisdictions passed the buck on each other. But again, off topic.

In this case, the president is doing something in the face of a threat that has such possibilty for disaster that today various goverments are meeting in Geneva to discuss the matter. And the president is not supposed to get involved in the face of this?

And what the president is doing is right up his alley in terms of what he should and can do. You say that he should leave it up to orginizations such as the CDC. But in case you did not know, they can't introduce legislation to do things like change the liability laws for drugs rushed to service in the case of an epidemic. Nor can they write their budget for vacines. If they want it, they can talk to the president and ask him to do it. And he is doing it.

I truely fail to see the logic of these attacks you are making. I wonder if someone other than you can point them out to me. You do not seem to be having much success in making your points. Since no one else besides me seems to see the logic behind your statements, I do not feel bad in saying I do not understand how you can maintain your position.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> First part- I do not understand at all. Are you trying to be silly? You plan for things when you have an idea of what you are dealing with.
> 
> Second part, off topic. And of course the planning for flood control in New Orleans had been in place for a good, long time. The whole thing is a very interesting read in how various agencies and jurisdictions passed the buck on each other. But again, off topic.
> 
> ...


 I already explained his "logic".   It's about attacking the president for everything at every turn, whether or not there is a valid issue to attack on.  Throw up enough flak, and something will hit.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I truely fail to see the logic of these attacks you are making. I wonder if someone other than you can point them out to me. You do not seem to be having much success in making your points. Since no one else besides me seems to see the logic behind your statements, I do not feel bad in saying I do not understand how you can maintain your position.


 
This is obvious.

I recommend these other sources.

The New York Times - Douglas Jehl - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html

The Washington Post - Walter Pincus - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501267_pf.html

Harpers Magazine. - http://harpers.org/RevisionThing.html

Each article discusses claims made earlier by the Bush Administration. Those claims are 'No Longer Operative', as they used to say. 

It should not be difficult to draw a comparison between the former statements and current statements. And while there may be more legitimacy from the current statements, are they being honestly portrayed? 

My position is they are not. In the articles I read, there is no mention, or only casual mention that the virus, that the virus can not transmit human to human.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My position is they are not. In the articles I read, there is no mention, or only casual mention that the virus, that the virus can not transmit human to human.



sgtmac46's statements about you seem more and more on the mark.

Have you missed all the comments about how easily flu mutates? Or how WHO, the CDC, various goverments, etc are all reacting with worry about how this could kill millions? Or the fact that the president has not done much to 'fear monger' other than announce new proposals?

And yet you still are trying to say this is all a big fraud to divert attention? You still want people to believe that because some things were not correct, that they must have been knowingly spread as lies and that this whole thing now is a lie?

I asked for someone other than you to explain it to me. Looking over this thread, it looks like everyone else is convinced that you are just on another crusade. No one else seems willing to lay out some sort of logic to what you write. Don't you think you should consider that?

Yes, you do sound like the guys wearing foil hats.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Have you missed all the comments about how easily flu mutates? Or how WHO, the CDC, various goverments, etc are all reacting with worry about how this could kill millions?


 
I heard a real interesting article last night about how the bird flu might affect Kentucky Fried Chicken. Did you know that Americans spend 50 billion dollars a year on chicken? I didn't. The article suggested that the economic impact of a bird flu could be a real issue in this industry, but we did learn that 'Mad Cow' had very little impact on the American consumer.

Do this article mention that the bird flu currently does not transmit human to human? Nope. 

Two items:
First, that the article was broadcast is indicative of the Presidential Bully Pulpit. If the president did not speak about this subject, this story would never have been assembled. 
Second, the article did not address the requirements for mutation and transmission. It truly may be that it was beyond the scope of the article. But, because of this, it is adding to the noise level, and the inaccuracies in understanding in the populace. Without the appropriate caveats, I submit citizens are becoming more aware of the threat, without good knowledge of how much of a threat it is; a Phantom Menace.

If I were Frank Perdue, I would be worried about the 82nd Airborne overtaking my farm.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> First, that the article was broadcast is indicative of the Presidential Bully Pulpit. If the president did not speak about this subject, this story would never have been assembled.



My god! Have you missed the thousands of articles on bird flu up to now?

And you are trying to say that there has been no impact of mad cow on the American consumer. But they have buried a few people in the last few weeks for eating chiken and eggs. Who was the last to die from eating a cow?

The whole idea that this is a phantom menace is just a paranoid conspiracy. If the CDC, WHO, and various goverments are running scared about this, how the heck can you say that it is a presidential conspiracy? I have been worried about this thing for months! And I am not alone in that.

Honestly, get out the foil hats folks.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I heard a real interesting article last night about how the bird flu might affect Kentucky Fried Chicken. Did you know that Americans spend 50 billion dollars a year on chicken? I didn't. The article suggested that the economic impact of a bird flu could be a real issue in this industry, but we did learn that 'Mad Cow' had very little impact on the American consumer.
> 
> Do this article mention that the bird flu currently does not transmit human to human? Nope.



In the case of eating chicken from KFC, it does not have to. Don't you know that? People can die, and have died in the last few weeks from eating chicken. One died from eating an egg.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> My god! Have you missed the thousands of articles on bird flu up to now?
> 
> And you are trying to say that there has been no impact of mad cow on the American consumer. But they have buried a few people in the last few weeks for eating chiken and eggs. Who was the last to die from eating a cow?
> 
> ...


 Everything's a presidential conspiracy to some people.  Bush created Bird Flu with the same machine he used to send Katrina down on black folks.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I heard a real interesting article last night about how the bird flu might affect Kentucky Fried Chicken. Did you know that Americans spend 50 billion dollars a year on chicken? I didn't. The article suggested that the economic impact of a bird flu could be a real issue in this industry, but we did learn that 'Mad Cow' had very little impact on the American consumer.
> 
> Do this article mention that the bird flu currently does not transmit human to human? Nope.
> 
> ...


 
Michael, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". It is one thing to be opposed to the greater portion of the Administration's policies, as I am (I abhor both it's fiscal irresponsibility and Pollyana "Democracy is on the March..." discourse on the Iraq situation), but not everything can be a party issue. THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON DESPISED POLITICAL PARTIES! One party will be against something, even if it is in the nation's best interest, if the OTHER party suggested it.

This is potentially such a grave CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the people of the United States that the PRESIDENT of the United States would be derelict in not addressing it with both barrels. By doing so, he has raised his, admittedly poor image in my mind, a bit. As an American, you have a similiar responsibility to put away party politics for this and take a good, hard look at this issue.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Michael, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". It is one thing to be opposed to the greater portion of the Administration's policies, as I am (I abhor both it's fiscal irresponsibility and Pollyana "Democracy is on the March..." discourse on the Iraq situation), but not everything can be a party issue. THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON DESPISED POLITICAL PARTIES! One party will be against something, even if it is in the nation's best interest, if the OTHER party suggested it.
> 
> This is potentially such a grave CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the people of the United States that the PRESIDENT of the United States would be derelict in not addressing it with both barrels. By doing so, he has raised his, admittedly poor image in my mind, a bit. As an American, you have a similiar responsibility to put away party politics for this and take a good, hard look at this issue.


  I agree...If anything should bring a bi-partisan concensus among people of normally opposing views, this should.  I mean, pandemics are no respecter of politics...they kill conservative and liberal, republican and democrat, true believer and atheist alike.


Michael is only illustrating the contrarian traits that make us love him so much.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> This is potentially such a grave CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the people of the United States that the PRESIDENT of the United States would be derelict in not addressing it with both barrels. By doing so, he has raised his, admittedly poor image in my mind, a bit. As an American, you have a similiar responsibility to put away party politics for this and take a good, hard look at this issue.


 
Using your description here, I posit H5N1 is a 'clear danger', that does deserve consideration of the appropariate health agencies in the country and around the world. 

I disagree with the assertion that it is a 'present danger'. Currently the virus is known to affect bird stock in foreign countries (Not North America - Yet). Currently, the virus is unable to make the human-to-human transmission that would be required for the threatened pandemic. 

Because I disagree with the 'Present Danger' portion of your assertion, I do not think this should rise to the level of the President. I think it is a distraction for President Bush, whose attention could best serve if it were pointed elsewhere. But, also, it serves generate fear in the populace which is often used to 'rally the base to the President'. 

As an analogy ... I think the President's focus on the Bird Flu is much like the focus the administration placed on Missile Defense in the first eight months of 2001. Sure, it's a nice program, and a good idea, and benefits the military-defense complex .... but while we're looking there, we're not looking at who the Minnesota FBI has detained, or what the memo from that Arizona field office is saying. 

Oh, well. Anything the President focuses on is good - because the President is focused on it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Using your description here, I posit H5N1 is a 'clear danger', that does deserve consideration of the appropariate health agencies in the country and around the world.
> 
> I disagree with the assertion that it is a 'present danger'. Currently the virus is known to affect bird stock in foreign countries (Not North America - Yet). Currently, the virus is unable to make the human-to-human transmission that would be required for the threatened pandemic.
> 
> ...


 Since you appear to be an expert on the topic, how long between the first spread of a human to human mutation of the virus and a total world wide pandemic?  1 month, 3 months?  Certainly not more than 6 months.  It seems waiting until then to take the problem seriously is like closing the barn door after the horse has fled the scene and is struck by traffic on the highway.  By then the problem will take care of itself.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Since you appear to be an expert on the topic, how long between the first spread of a human to human mutation of the virus and a total world wide pandemic? 1 month, 3 months? Certainly not more than 6 months. It seems waiting until then to take the problem seriously is like closing the barn door after the horse has fled the scene and is struck by traffic on the highway. By then the problem will take care of itself.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1641765,00.html

Here is some frightening news. Scientists are now saying that the bird flu IS mutating to a form more easily transmittable to mammals. This is scary stuff and needs to be taken WITH THE UTMOST SERIOUSNESS. This is NOT a time or issue for politics. It's true, I don't like or trust the current political party in power, but we need to take hold of this issue and if they are doing so - let's back them with both barrels.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1641765,00.html
> 
> Here is some frightening news. Scientists are now saying that the bird flu IS mutating to a form more easily transmittable to mammals. This is scary stuff and needs to be taken WITH THE UTMOST SERIOUSNESS. This is NOT a time or issue for politics. It's true, I don't like or trust the current political party in power, but we need to take hold of this issue and if they are doing so - let's back them with both barrels.


 
Yep, you're right .. No politics. Just the facts.

This from the actual article. 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/12/content_3770103.htm



> However, the institute has been unable to define which kinds of mutations allow human-to-human transmission, and which conditions lead to the mutations.


 
The article breaks no new information.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yep, you're right .. No politics. Just the facts.
> 
> This from the actual article.
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/12/content_3770103.htm
> ...


 I think I asked you a question, michael...It even got it repeated above.

"how long between the first spread of a human to human mutation of the virus and a total world wide pandemic? 1 month, 3 months? Certainly not more than 6 months. It seems waiting until then to take the problem seriously is like closing the barn door after the horse has fled the scene and is struck by traffic on the highway. By then the problem will take care of itself."

If you're just going to guess, then you have nothing to add to the debate.  To write off the seriousness of the situation simply because you want to discredit the administration is hardly responsible.  It seems you've allowed politics to blind you to a threat that effects all of us.  You're probably not alone either.  

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." Alexander Hamilton


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "how long between the first spread of a human to human mutation of the virus and a total world wide pandemic?


 
As I understand it. *Any* pandemic will spead globally over an 36 month period. Except, it will not be a linear distribution.  

A very short search on google provided this information. There is some historical information here. I have highlighted one sentence that should be noted. *How Fast* is apparently, an irrelevant question, as it had no effect on mortality.



> In the previous century, pandemics traveled from continent to continent along sea lanes, with global spread complete within six to eight months. The 1957 pandemic, during an era with much less globalization, spread to the US within 4-5 months of its detection in China, and the 1968 pandemic spread to the US from Hong Kong within 2-3 months. As was amply demonstrated by the SARS outbreak, modern travel patterns may significantly reduce the time needed for pandemic influenza viruses to spread globally to a few months or even weeks. The major implication of such rapid spread of an infectious disease is that there will be only minimal time to implement preparations and responses once pandemic viruses have begun to spread. The *speed of international spread has no direct effect on mortality*, but could compromise response capacity should large parts of the world experience almost simultaneous outbreaks. Many of the public health interventions that successfully contained SARS will not be effective against a disease that is far more contagious, has a very short incubation period, and can be transmitted prior to the onset of symptoms.
> 
> Most experts believe that there will be one to six months between the identification of a novel influenza virus and the time that widespread outbreaks begin to occur in the US. Outbreaks are expected to occur simultaneously throughout much of the US, preventing relocation of human and material resources. Because populations will be fully susceptible to an H5N1-like virus, rates of illness could peak fairly rapidly within a given community. The effect of influenza on individual communities will be relatively prolonged - six to eight weeks, though possibly up to twelve weeks.
> 
> A pandemic will last much longer than most public health emergencies and may include "waves" of influenza activity separated by months. In 20th century pandemics, a second wave of influenza activity occurred 3 to 12 months after the first wave. In 1957 the second wave began 3 months after the peak of the first wave, while in 1968 the second wave began 12 months after peak of the first wave. The first wave of the 1918 flu occurred in the spring of that year ending in March. That flu was very severe by usual standards but the second wave beginning 6 months later in September was the most fatal. During the 1918 pandemic, the deadly second wave was responsible for more than 90% of the deaths for the entire pandemic. The third wave occurred more than a year later, during the following 1919-1920 winter/spring, and was the mildest of all.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I understand it. *Any* pandemic will spead globally over an 36 month period. Except, it will not be a linear distribution.
> 
> A very short search on google provided this information. There is some historical information here. I have highlighted one sentence that should be noted. *How Fast* is apparently, an irrelevant question, as it had no effect on mortality.


No, its not irrelevant. The spread has no effect on the mortality rate of the virus, thats true. However the amount (as in the number of) deaths is greatly effected by the speed of transmition. The speed the virus spreads has nothing at all to do with how quickly people die from the virus. That is what your source is saying, the fact that in a short period of time hundreds of millions may be infected most certainly does effect the amount of deaths from the virus.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2006)

This report in from Time magazine. 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1147894,00.html?cnn=yes



> The most interesting bird flu news out of Turkey so far is that the H5N1 virus doesnt seem to make everyone it infects deathly ill. In fact, doctors in an Ankara hospital are closely watching two young tots who have the virus but arent displaying any symptoms.
> ....
> And indeed, about half of all cases that have been confirmed by the World Health Organization have ended in death. But that doesnt mean bird flu is necessarily 50% fatal for humans.
> ....
> The _Archives_ study isnt conclusive because no blood tests confirming the presence of H5N1 were performed. But the hypothesis that bird flu is more common and less deadly than previously thought is intriguing.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jan 12, 2006)

I know it's a tragic mess; but, I have to post this...


----------



## someguy (Jan 12, 2006)

Every year there is one desiese the media talks about.  Usually they blow it way out of proportion.
West Niles...
Mad cow in the US oh no...
Its too bad a couple of people died of this but, frankly the deaths are no where near as prevolent as say a car crash.  Or perhaps you want a real pandimic.  AIDs.
I'm not to threatend by it.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 14, 2006)

Some disturbing news from Turkey. Maybe it is nothing, maybe it is the start of something really bad. That is the problem with things like this. You really can't tell until it happens.



> Friday, January 13, 2006
> 
> Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Blindside (Jan 14, 2006)

someguy said:
			
		

> Every year there is one desiese the media talks about. Usually they blow it way out of proportion.
> West Niles...
> Mad cow in the US oh no...
> Its too bad a couple of people died of this but, frankly the deaths are no where near as prevolent as say a car crash. Or perhaps you want a real pandimic. AIDs.
> I'm not to threatend by it.


 
If you aren't threatened by the potential of a H5N1-like virus, you aren't paying attention.  Right now human mortality for those infected by H5N1 is running about 50%, fortunately the Turkey examples are running less than that right now.  I don't think I'm being alarmist to worry about what happens if it becomes easily transmittable in humans, or for that matter to actually start planning for the security of my family if it does.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 15, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> If you aren't threatened by the potential of a H5N1-like virus, you aren't paying attention. Right now human mortality for those infected by H5N1 is running about 50%, fortunately the Turkey examples are running less than that right now. I don't think I'm being alarmist to worry about what happens if it becomes easily transmittable in humans, or for that matter to actually start planning for the security of my family if it does.
> 
> Lamont


 
As the Time Magazine article points out, the report of 50% fatality of H5N1 may be grossly off the mark. That number is based only on the known infections by the WHO. The WHO did not test a broad sample of the population. It tested only those who were sick. The report indicates the there are some asymptomatically infected people.

At this point, it appears to be something about which we know our information in incomplete. Continuing to quote a 50% fatality rate is, I think, alarmist.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 25, 2006)

I watched Oprah yesterday and a disease specialist was talking about the bird flu.  He basically said to stockup for 8-12 weeks, and buy masks, not the surgical kind but the kind with two filters on each side.  Even if the bird flu doesn't happen he said, a pandemic will happen soon.  That statement left me a little iffy.  A lifetime of paranoia.  Or better safe than sorry?

Anyway this also bothered me. From the show, at http://www2.oprah.com, it is still listed today but don't know if they archive it.

Who is most at risk of bird flu? 

Dr. Osterholm says that a typical flu season kills 36,000 people every year, and the very young and very old are most at risk "because they are the ones that are most vulnerable to infectious diseases." 

Not exactly the case with bird flu, he says. If the bird flu is anything like the 1918 pandemic, the highest death rates could actually be "those between the ages of 20 and 40." 

"In the months of September and October of 1918, 7 percent of the residents of Boston between 20 and 40 years of age died," he says. 

How could individuals in the prime of their health be so susceptible to a disease? "It turns out that this virus multiplies very quickly in your body," Dr. Osterholm explains. "The people who have the healthiest immune systems are the ones that succumb to the virus because the immune system goes into overdrive." 

In other words the healthiest people are the most prone to die.  Here I am taking Nutriferon, a Shaklee product to boost the immune system so I don't get sick over the winter and this might hurt me in the case of bird flu?

This sounds like its better to wear masks and stay away from people.  But then he also said that bird flu is most contagious the day before symptoms are evident so people could be spreading it unknowingly and no one would be safe to be around.  

Just hope it doesn't happen. TW


----------



## Blindside (Jan 25, 2006)

> I watched Oprah yesterday and a disease specialist was talking about the bird flu. He basically said to stockup for 8-12 weeks, and buy masks, not the surgical kind but the kind with two filters on each side. Even if the bird flu doesn't happen he said, a pandemic will happen soon. That statement left me a little iffy. A lifetime of paranoia. Or better safe than sorry?


 
Any preparations you make for a possible bird flu outbreak will only provide you with security in other situations.  Having 8-12 weeks of food and plans for water is good for any person/family to have, that being said, having more is better.  

N95 masks are the minimum recommended by the CDC for dealing with avian flu.  You can buy N95 masks that look like dust masks, for higher protection you will have to go with some type of respirator.  If you go the respirator route, P100 filters are only slightly more expensive than N95 filters, and offer more protection against different types of aerosols.

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jan 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As the Time Magazine article points out, the report of 50% fatality of H5N1 may be grossly off the mark. That number is based only on the known infections by the WHO. The WHO did not test a broad sample of the population. It tested only those who were sick. The report indicates the there are some asymptomatically infected people.
> 
> At this point, it appears to be something about which we know our information in incomplete. Continuing to quote a 50% fatality rate is, I think, alarmist.


 
It is the only fatality rate that we have, and given the possible consequences I'd rather be alarmist than too passive.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2006)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> . But then he also said that bird flu is most contagious the day before symptoms are evident so people could be spreading it unknowingly and no one would be safe to be around.


 
Currently, Bird Flu (H5N1 Virus) is *NOT *contagious from human to human. 

I know (or expect) that you are aware of this. It may just be the language with which you are reporting this, or it may be exactly what he said. People, at this time, are not unknowingly spreading anything. He may expect that, *if* the mutation occurs, people will be contagious without having external symptoms.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Currently, Bird Flu (H5N1 Virus) is *NOT *contagious from human to human.
> 
> I know (or expect) that you are aware of this. It may just be the language with which you are reporting this, or it may be exactly what he said. People, at this time, are not unknowingly spreading anything. He may expect that, *if* the mutation occurs, people will be contagious without having external symptoms.


 
Or he might be referring to the other strains of avian influenza that are currently human to human transmissible (H1N1,H1N2,H3N2).


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Or he might be referring to the other strains of avian influenza that are currently human to human transmissible (H1N1,H1N2,H3N2).


 
And why, in the context of the information provided here, would we make that assumption or draw that conclusion? I have not seen the Oprah episode. There may be further clarification there.

I do hope the World Health Organization is taking all 'appropriate' action to monitor viruses across the globe. I think the level of discussion of 'Bird Flu' is completely out of proportion with the known facts.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Currently, Bird Flu (H5N1 Virus) is *NOT *contagious from human to human.
> 
> I know (or expect) that you are aware of this. It may just be the language with which you are reporting this, or it may be exactly what he said. People, at this time, are not unknowingly spreading anything. He may expect that, *if* the mutation occurs, people will be contagious without having external symptoms.



Yes, I'm aware of that.  Also it was made pretty clear from the doctor that it is not a big step for the virus to mutate into something that is spread human to human.  When/if that happens, then it may be too late to go shopping for three months of food and the masks may be impossible to get. Already Tamiflu is practically impossible to get.  I looked.  It takes a prescription from a doctor for the amount needed at the time.  No stockpiling.  According to Dr. Osterholm, Tamiflu only works if you megadose in the two days before symptoms anyway.  He said that Tamiflu is better reserved for our medical personnel.  Our hospitals, medical personnel, cities would have to have plans in place for the sick or dead. I know our small town in MN. had a meeting about this to start planning.  Maybe our town officials took note that their was a national conference on bird flu and pandemic spread in Minneapolis/St. Paul.  Dr. Osterholm comes from Minnesota.  I think that is why the warnings are happening, to better prepare than to be left unprepared. 

I used to have two months of food and water in case of a earthquake while living in the LA area.  I had two small children to think of.  I just hated that, because all we ever had were rumbles, scary rumbles but no damage except our house slab probably got cracked more.  So in a few months after we left Calif., sold our home, they had the Northridge earthquake.  The area we were in was greatly affected, alot of damage, a few shortages since we were adjacent to Northridge.  Never know when it could happen.  Anyway, I guess I could rotate food again if I want the feeling of security.  But won't feel too good even if my family was fully prepared if it happened when my daughter is living in Phoenix, probably not prepared.  So, I don't know.

I guess it wouldn't hurt with all the experts warning us.  What other warning would you require?  A for sure outbreak of human transmitted flu may be too late for us ALL to prepare. TW


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2006)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> I guess it wouldn't hurt with all the experts warning us. What other warning would you require? A for sure outbreak of human transmitted flu may be too late for us ALL to prepare. TW


 
Being reasonably prepared is always a good idea. I do think this whole bird flu issue is completely out of proportion. I don't mean to belittle the deaths, or the dangers. 

I heard the President discuss the possibilities of a Bird Flu outbreak a few months back in a press conference. To me, the question in the Press Conference, and the President's response sounded entirely too scripted; like the question was a planted question.

The President is often described as having a 'Bully Pulpit'; when he speaks, events follow. 

I think we would find all experts stating it is impossible to predict a pandemic. So, whether a small mutation or a large mutation is what it would take to modify H5N1 to be a human-to-human contagion is irrelevant to the ability for accurate predictions. The President, through his words and actions, has created an expectation of prediction. 

This article covers some of the points I am following. It is kind of a long article, but it points to some of the common sense actions, and some of the out of proportion actions being taken around the world. 

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2006012114033373


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Being reasonably prepared is always a good idea. I do think this whole bird flu issue is completely out of proportion. I don't mean to belittle the deaths, or the dangers.


 The problem, michael, is that once it IS in 'proportion' it's too late to do anything about it.  It's a lot like wearing a bullet resistant vest.  Sure, you might feel silly for overreacting.....unless someone does shoot at you.



			
				michealedward said:
			
		

> I heard the President discuss the possibilities of a Bird Flu outbreak a few months back in a press conference. To me, the question in the Press Conference, and the President's response sounded entirely too scripted; like the question was a planted question.


 Oh, I know, just another conspiracy.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President is often described as having a 'Bully Pulpit'; when he speaks, events follow.


 Well, again, it certainly sounds like a conspiracy to me.  Actually, what it seems like to me is that, every time the president speaks, you have to manufacture a new theory to explain how what he said was part of a devious conspiracy.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think we would find all experts stating it is impossible to predict a pandemic. So, whether a small mutation or a large mutation is what it would take to modify H5N1 to be a human-to-human contagion is irrelevant to the ability for accurate predictions. The President, through his words and actions, has created an expectation of prediction.


 There are a lot of things it's impossible to predict....like having a vehicle collision on the way home from work.  But it's clear that not wearing a seat belt in a collision is a quick way to die.  

Actually, what the president has done, is what I would expect him to do.  Prepare for the possibility.  If the virus DOES mutate, and we've done absolutely nothing, then it's really too late.

This is like the New Orleans deal in reverse.  If the President 'underreacts' he is criticized as being incompetent.  If the president 'overreacts' he's criticized for 'manufacturing a non-existent crisis'.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> This article covers some of the points I am following. It is kind of a long article, but it points to some of the common sense actions, and some of the out of proportion actions being taken around the world.


 That's all well and good, michael, but will you be willing to take personally responsible if there is an outbreak and we do nothing?  Doubtful.  Likely in that event, you'll just disavow any knowledge of the argument you've made here.  That's what is so great about being a monday morning quarterback.....You don't have to take any responsibility for your calls.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I think Alexander Hamilton summed up the real issue....


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's all well and good, michael, but will you be willing to take personally responsible if there is an outbreak and we do nothing?


 
I can't understand how I get accused of 'doing nothing'. 

I can't believe you are unable to comprehend what I actually write? 

Please stop attempting to dumb down my positions to your level. 

Maybe this will help ... (but I doubt it)


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do hope the World Health Organization is taking all 'appropriate' action to monitor viruses across the globe.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I can't understand how I get accused of 'doing nothing'.


 Nobody accused you of 'doing nothing'....though, you are doing nothing.  What I accuse you of is advocating 'doing nothing' as a plan of action, or at least, doing little.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I can't believe you are unable to comprehend what I actually write?


 Oh, please, I know exactly what you've written....Let me paraphrase.  'There is no terrorist threa...,' er, I mean 'there IS no Bird Flu threat, it's all made up by the administration so they can take your attention off what's REALLY going on'. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please stop attempting to dumb down my positions to your level.


 You do like the simplistic insults, don't you.  I say something you don't like (but I didn't insult you) and you use words like 'dumb down' and insinuate that's my 'level'.   If you can't have a debate, without resorting to childish insults, then perhaps you need a 'time-out'.  Please, have some self-respect. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Maybe this will help ... (but I doubt it)


 It won't help, because it's a dodge.  Your real issue is with the man himself, not with his policy on Bird Flu.  That is the issue.  You want to attack the administration for 'overreacting' which, quite frankly, most agree isn't happening in this case.  I think I hit a nerve in pointing that out, though.

Your entire argument is based on faulty logic.  For instance, you've maintained that there is no threat because there is no evidence the Bird Flu can transmit from human to human....yet.  Well, no kidding.  If it could, we'd already be in an epidemic.  Perhaps there's something you are failing to understand.  By the time the virus DOES mutate to a human to human contact form, the genie is out of the bottle, and it's too late to look for a stopper.  

Overreacting may waste money, underracting has the potential to kill many people.  I vote for overreaction in this circumstance.  You may have faith in your proclaimations that there is no serious threat, but i'm far from convinced.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks Michael for the article.  I read the whole thing, took time to think about it.  If the writer had been a little less opinionated, more factual it would have been easier to swallow.  It does bother me about Rumsfeld economically benefiting from Tamiflu and about his history.  It could also be that they are opportunists to a developing problem and potential disaster. Flu will always be around and Tamiflu was developed for that, not the bird flu.  According to Dr. Osterholm, it is not a cure but helps save lives if given early. I don't think most of us will get any, at the right time, anyway. It will go to medical, infrastructure, people who would most likely survive. Not for the over 50's I would imagine. Osterholm even said that the hospitals would treat people like that, the ones who would most likely survive.

Whatever I have read doesn't convince me that the bird flu has not stopped mutating and hasn't done any changes in the last eight years. Some have said it has gone more to migratory birds. The writer of that article didn't mention Turkey, which is also bird to human but there have been mutations.  One mutation too many and it will go human-to-human. Or it might take a few years, or not.  I also give you credit since you did not discourage taking precautions now.  Actually I ordered masks as I noted the place I got them from, did not have alot of them.  Who knows they may just list it like that and have a storehouse full.  It may be just money wasted, kind of like a fender bender.  I have enough to worry about then worry about bird flu and if this gives me a little semi-security so be it. 

Also, I don't believe so many scientists and doctors coming forward to speak about bird flu, also saying for cities, hospitals, families to prepare should be ignored.  I can't believe they are part of a scheme to make money. Sure some make money in the grant process.  They are a part of government to some extent as being directed to investigate bird flu and preparations needed but I don't think they would put their careers on the line to squawk that the sky could fall to later look like dodo birds. Sars was real and we were fortunate in that it was quashed but Bird Flu could be alot different. So, this does give me pause and reason to regard what they are saying. TW


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2006)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJS
-MT Moderator-


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

TigerWoman, 

So, last night, as I go to bed, I find my wife curled up in bed reading this catalog.

www.beprepared.com 

Aarrrgghhh!!!

Looking forward to receiving the 43 pound SuperPail of lentils ... woo-hoo!

http://beprepared.com/product.asp?pn=FS%20P290


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> TigerWoman,
> 
> So, last night, as I go to bed, I find my wife curled up in bed reading this catalog.
> 
> ...



I've tried hard for years to understand what makes a person mock being prepared for emergencies. I'm not sayin you should go crazy, but why do people hold so firm to their own belief or "gut feeling" that "nothing will happen to me"? I mean that is exactly what gets people killed in survival situations....being prepared is simply a precaution that is basically insurance. I wonder if people who feel this way have life or health insurance? 

If you just happen to be right nad you never need any type of emergency equipment what have you lost....a few bucks? What if you do need it and you were too proud to buy it?

just interesting to me...

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

I do hope you are not referring to me (although that begs the question to whom you are refering), when you say someone chooses to 'mock' preparedness. 

I hope that I have not been seen as 'mocking' reasonable preparedness.

I have 30 gallons of potable water stored in my house. I have dehydrated food in my house (primarily used for camping and hiking ... but I keep some quantity on hand). I have several propane bottles for my propane fired coleman stove. And there are regular trips to the grocery store in my house.

I think that having a 44 pound canister of white rice is not reasonable. Page two of that catalogue has a YEAR SUPPLY of dry food, freeze dried food, and dehydrated food; A YEAR? (It's a bargain at $1399.95 + $12.00 Shipping).


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 27, 2006)

I wouldn't say you have been mocking reasonable preparedness, but then again what is reasonable to one might be completely unreasonable to another. 

Yes, I would say a year of dehydrated food is a bit excesive, but then you turn around and are pretty close to mocking those who advocate preparedness for things like biological epidimics....such as bird flu. Is it more "reasonable" to prepare yourself with propane and regular trips to the super market than it is to prepare yourself with filter masks and vacines? Is the need for one more urgent or "reasonable" than the need for the other?

I know your not trying to belittle the dangers of Bird Flu, but you simply write off those who advocate some level of activity to become prepared for its mutation....on an individual or governmental level.

7sm


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 27, 2006)

Ohhhh, you had to show me that site.  Maybe deciding something is possible or not possible comes down to your mentality- pessimistic or optimistic.  I know my mom was the eternal optimist when she really had no reason to be.  So I am a pessimist mostly. Arrrghhh!  

That site has pages and pages of food barrels.  Heck you can order 45 boxes of food for a year, prepackaged for a year at a tidy sum of 2K+.  You would really have to be paranoid for that. You would need an extra room for food. Even three months is a lot of food to store.  I usually go to the store twice a week, minimum once.  12 trips worth of food minimum~it has got to be condensed somehow. 

Some of that was a little much.  The powdered peanut butter for example. But I suppose the freeze dried veggies and fruits are smaller in size than canned for storage.  Freeze dried meat.  MRE's and I notice that some of the meals are out of stock/backordered.  

I will have to think about it.  And I guess that is what you are doing when you started the thread Michael is making us all think about it.  Thinking, studying the situation is one point closer to doing something for preparedness.  And it sounds like you are more prepared than my family is at the moment, masks or not.  

Where I got the P100 masks:  http://safetyrespirators.com/scripts/depot.exe?pgm=sarsgate.bbx TW


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Is it more "reasonable" to prepare yourself with propane and regular trips to the super market than it is to prepare yourself with filter masks and vacines? Is the need for one more urgent or "reasonable" than the need for the other?


 
The reasonableness of a preparation would appear to be proportional to the likelyhood of the event for which one is preparing is likely to occur. 

I am quite certain that I am going to need to consume food over the next several days, therefore, it is reasonable to make weekly trips to the grocery store. 

I am less certain of the possibility of my municipalities public water supply becoming contaminated, or my electric stove not being able to function for several days. While these things have been constantly available to me in the past, and there is no reason to expect them to not be regularly available in the future, that possibility does exist (especially in winter in New England). 

The possibility of genetic mutation of a virus, seems even more remote. Then, if a mutation does occur, it needs to be a mutation that enables human to human infection. I wonder if the possibility of a mutation of the virus that makes it inert is equally likely to a mutation that creates a pandemic. 

So, reasonableness, I think, is something that can be quantified.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The reasonableness of a preparation would appear to be proportional to the likelyhood of the event for which one is preparing is likely to occur.


 Appearances can be deceiving. The problem is that many people assume the likelyhood of an event happeneding based on thier own "gut feeling" or inacurate processes. Based soley on the fact that the event has not happened or hasn't happened in a long time is erroneous. Its like an airplane crash, it hasn't happened in a long time...does that make it less likely to happen or more likely? You can play with numbers all day long to find some faux static average of your percentage of being in an airplane crash, but the fact is you cannot be certain. The millions of dynamic details within the system (the airplane itself) simply prove an incident is going to happen. Its not if, but when....it could be the landing gear problem that kept you on the ground for two hours before take off, but something is going to happen. When you start adding in human qualities to a system the assumptions can be blinding....like for instance saying the likelyhood of a virus mutation being very slim even in the face of data showing the mutation of viruses actively happening quite frequently. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am quite certain that I am going to need to consume food over the next several days, therefore, it is reasonable to make weekly trips to the grocery store.


 I wouldn't really think of going to the grocery store as being preperation, I do that anyway and the food I get from one week to the next is not goign to make a bit of difference in a survival situation. 

To set the records straight, I'm not saying be scared of everything, in fact according to your previous posts you are more "prepared" than I am, but writing off a potential danger as "scare tactics" is turning a blind eye. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am less certain of the possibility of my municipalities public water supply becoming contaminated, or my electric stove not being able to function for several days. While these things have been constantly available to me in the past, and there is no reason to expect them to not be regularly available in the future, that possibility does exist (especially in winter in New England).
> 
> The possibility of genetic mutation of a virus, seems even more remote. Then, if a mutation does occur, it needs to be a mutation that enables human to human infection. I wonder if the possibility of a mutation of the virus that makes it inert is equally likely to a mutation that creates a pandemic.


 Thats exactly my point. Our certainty is based on what? The data we can put in front of ourselves and our own feelings of saftey. Does your certainty about the possiblilty of your water supply being contaminated have any effect whatsoever on the actual possibility of that happening? The fact that things have been constantly available in the past is no basis of future availability. These seemingly small insignificant assumptions can inadvertantly put you in a situation that could kill you. This could be said of mountain climbers, hunters, fighters, or city civilians. The truth is in the facts but how do we get the true facts? Does the seemingly remote possibility hold enough weight to keep you immune from a disaster such as this? 

You take all this with a grain of salt, and for the record I own no fliter masks, dried foods, or even propane supplies....I do however see the possibility of a survival situation around "bird flu" and find it disconcerting to see people ignore it. Its the same as martial arts....I see the possibility of needing to use my training heavily remote....I do however still train for self defense.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, reasonableness, I think, is something that can be quantified.


 By what means? Only in our own minds. What you find so remote to even accept I may accept as quite possible. To get heavy and go psychobably (is that a word?) our minds will accept the possibility of things differently according to our life experiences, training, and mental make-up. The fact may be that bird flu will mutate to human form is a 5% chance (just pulled that out of the air) but how you and I react to that data could be very different. Will one of us be right and one wrong?

I see the actuality of bird flu mutating and causing a "pandemic" that will actually affect me personally as very minute....however I'm open enough to accept even what I consider as minute still possible. Therefore preparing for said possibility is neither rash nor "crazy". What I would consider rash is ignoring the possibility and writing it off as political "scare tactics" to keep the general populous under control.

7sm


----------



## Blindside (Jan 27, 2006)

> I will have to think about it. And I guess that is what you are doing when you started the thread Michael is making us all think about it. Thinking, studying the situation is one point closer to doing something for preparedness. And it sounds like you are more prepared than my family is at the moment, masks or not.


 
My family has always kept emergency food on hand, and its not like we are LDS, it is just a prudent thing to do.  Even if none of the End Of The World type events happen, preperation for emergencies is important.  These food stores can be used if a main providor for the family gets disabled, fired, etc.  Perhaps I am too self-sufficent for my own good, but I'm not particularly inclined to rely on government, religion, or the good will of my neighbors to bail me out of such a problem.  I consider these types of preperation to be just one more method of self-protection.

Lamont

PS:  Much cheaper 1-year food stores can be found at:  
http://waltonfeed.com/intro/packages.html

These will require a grinder and some cooking knowledge.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

This article, from the New York Times, is a good representation of a 'reasonable' precaution the WHO and governments can and should be taking.

It is interesting that, until January of this year, there was *no money* to train a brigade of cullers. 

Also, it was interesting that in the 1990's there were 150,000 'backyard birds' in Los Angeles County, that needed to be exterminated because of Newcastle disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/29chickens.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1



> "We need an international culling task force, a reliably robust, incorruptible public service to go around killing chickens," said Dr. David Nabarro, special representative for avian flu for the United Nations secretary general.
> Dr. Juan Lubroth, senior animal health officer for the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, said he would like to have at least 20 more veterinarians right now to send to Indonesia and Turkey simply to train "brigades of cullers," and would need more for each country the disease reaches.
> The total cost, he said, would depend on whether he can borrow government veterinarians from wealthy countries or has to hire privately, and whether he sends a few to lead workshops in the capital or dozens into small villages to supervise culling. He is also negotiating with a Dutch company to bring its portable chicken-killing machines to southeast Asia, he said.
> Until recently, Dr. Lubroth said, he had no money for any of this. But since Jan. 18, when 33 nations and international institutions at a meeting in Beijing pledged $1.9 billion to fight avian flu, "all of a sudden, I'm able to make some decisions."


----------



## Xequat (Jan 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The reasonableness of a preparation would appear to be proportional to the likelyhood of the event for which one is preparing is likely to occur. So, reasonableness, I think, is something that can be quantified.


 
Good point, except that it's not so much a linear equation as you lay it out, but more of a function that also must include consequences.  In other words, the possibility of a nuclear blast at a power plant is extremely remote, but we'd better have some preparation just in case.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Good point, except that it's not so much a linear equation as you lay it out, but more of a function that also must include consequences. In other words, the possibility of a nuclear blast at a power plant is extremely remote, but we'd better have some preparation just in case.


 
You've never visited the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant have you? (this is a bit sarcastic, because the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant has a really lousy "get away from the meltdown plan" ... a two lane road which is typically jammed in summer).

I don't mean to lay out a linear equation. I mean to imply that we must balance three factors; 1) the probability of risk, 2) the extent of risk, and 3) the extent of preparation.

While I agree that, in the case of bird flu, the 'extent of risk' is quite high, I am arguing that the 'probability of risk' is quite low.

It seems to me that others, notably the President of the United States, is attempting to elevate the 'probabilty of risk'.  If one agrees with the increased 'probability of risk', then one would naturally increase the 'extent of preparation'. 

I believe, and have stated from the beginning of this thread and another, that there are political reasons for elevating the probability of risk.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You've never visited the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant have you? (this is a bit sarcastic, because the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant has a really lousy "get away from the meltdown plan" ... a two lane road which is typically jammed in summer).
> 
> I don't mean to lay out a linear equation. I mean to imply that we must balance three factors; 1) the probability of risk, 2) the extent of risk, and 3) the extent of preparation.
> 
> ...


 But, then, you believe everything is a political conspiracy on the part of the administration, so that's nothing new.  I have to wonder how much of your judgement on the issue is driven by a dislike of the administration.  

That's a legitimate concern, because it's a bit dangerous to make an assessment of a degree of risk, based solely on a contrarian reaction to a position held by someone you dislike.  Ask yourself, did you base all this on a well-reasoned and thought out research of the actual degree of risk (as I suspect you'll maintain) or did you come up with the conclusion, then set about looking at only the evidence that supported your original position, and disregarding any information that contradicts that position. (as I suspect).   

If it's the latter, then you're doing people a bit of a disservice on the degree of risk posed by Avian Flu in particular, and emerging viruses in general.  It's certainly not an area to insert partisan politics, though, apparently there is no common ground on America anymore, even when the enemy is something that could kill millions of Americans.  

It is clear that the degree of risk, on a year to year basis, is actually fairly high.  Killer flu outbreaks, coming from similar sources, have ravaged the world several times in the last century, with one particular incident killing more Americans in a few months than died in WWI.


----------



## Xequat (Feb 16, 2006)

Here are some references to what you're writing about, sgtmac_46:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/15/birdflu.cost/index.html



_"So far, all but a handful of cases of human sickness have been caused by direct contact with sick birds, suggesting the virus is unable to move easily among humans._
_But health officials have warned that with continued exposure to people, the virus could mutate further and develop that ability."_

This article is on CNN.com and the study was done by some organization in Australia, neither of which is hardly in Bush's back pocket.  Hope it's useful.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2006)

A very scary article. (that may be the point, and that is my point)

But it is still premised on a great big "*IF*" the virus mutates; and if that mutution is in the direction that makes it transmutable among second and third generation infections.

And while we are concentrating on building missle defense shields against North Korea, al Qaeda hi-jacks a couple of planes and flies them into buildings. 

Right now, Bird Flu is sucking up all the oxygen in the World Health Care Organizations. We do realize, that West Nile Virus has killed more people than H5N1, right? 

One last thought, many reference the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-1919; in fact, sgtmac_46 said it killed more Americans than died in WWI. An interesting theory that has been floated is that WWI was a contributing factor in the spread of that pandemic. You will recall that in 1917-1918, many young men from around the world were living together in trenches in the months preceeding the outbreak. The theory is that the soldiers were what caused the flu to spread around the globe. Just a though, eh?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 12, 2006)

Coincidence? 


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350787.ece



> *Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug *
> 
> *By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen *
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Coincidence?



Yes. 

He was on the board long ago. Much of the profits of Tamiflu are from people with concerns about bird flu in other countries. Someone with experience in the stock market tends to realize good stocks that later go up because of a need. No one could have predicted bird flu, but you could see that at some point a drug like tamiflu would be a good thing to own a part of.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> One last thought, many reference the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-1919; in fact, sgtmac_46 said it killed more Americans than died in WWI. An interesting theory that has been floated is that WWI was a contributing factor in the spread of that pandemic. You will recall that in 1917-1918, many young men from around the world were living together in trenches in the months preceeding the outbreak. The theory is that the soldiers were what caused the flu to spread around the globe. Just a though, eh?


 
The large scale mobilization of troops and their garrisoning in enclosed locations contributed so significantly to the spread of the virus that the Influenza victims of 1918-19 are considered by many historians to have been casualties of the First World War.

*HOWEVER, IMO, the massive increase in population density in modern times and the increased mobility due to large scale  air travel and other forms of modern transportation more than duplicates the effects of the First World War mobilizations and encampments upon the spread of the virus.*

Please remember also that the first alarms raised by political activists were on the LIBERAL side of the fence - it was only after the Administration began taking the threat seriously (as they should) that the Left began to attack concerns over Bird Flu as hype and conspiracy. BTW, as you know, I am more to the LEFT than the RIGHT and I cannot stand the current Administration in so many ways, but if I knew that I had a two percent chance of being shot tomorrow I would go into debt to purchase body armor - wouldn't you?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 12, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> The large scale mobilization of troops and their garrisoning in enclosed locations contributed so significantly to the spread of the virus that the Influenza victims of 1918-19 are considered by many historians to have been casualties of the First World War.
> 
> *HOWEVER, IMO, the massive increase in population density in modern times and the increased mobility due to large scale air travel and other forms of modern transportation more than duplicates the effects of the First World War mobilizations and encampments upon the spread of the virus.*
> 
> Please remember also that the first alarms raised by political activists were on the LIBERAL side of the fence - it was only after the Administration began taking the threat seriously (as they should) that the Left began to attack concerns over Bird Flu as hype and conspiracy. BTW, as you know, I am more to the LEFT than the RIGHT and I cannot stand the current Administration in so many ways, but if I knew that I had a two percent chance of being shot tomorrow I would go into debt to purchase body armor - wouldn't you?


 
The question your comment begs is : How are you determining a 'two percent chance'? What other items do you have a 'two percent chance' of encountering; How about Eastern Equine Encephalitis or West Nile? How about getting hit by a bus? Heart Disease? (but I still eat at McDonalds). 

I have said it before, and I will say it again;

I started this thread because of a Presidential Press Conference, during which a specific question was asked and answered. The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush. He performed above his ability with the question. The conclusion I draw is that it was a planted question, with a canned and prepared answer. And because I draw those conclusions, I find that the question 'WHY' is keeps coming up. 

Others are free to draw different conclusions ... 

The governments response, in my opinion, is not proportional with the threat. Compare the response to the anthrax attacks of 2001/2002. Compare the response to West Nile Virus. Compare the response to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The governments response, in my opinion, is not proportional with the threat. Compare the response to the anthrax attacks of 2001/2002. Compare the response to West Nile Virus. Compare the response to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.



The governments response is not proportional to the threat as they portray it or as you see the threat?  Is it a very large threat or a very small one?  They, Bush may just have wanted to be very careful what was said, and it could of very well be canned, so what.  Sounds like what they do alot anyway, preplan questions and answers or maybe I've been watching too much West Wing.  

They have a bird flu shot, for the birds for at least one or some of the variations.  How could we prepare for variation/mutation that jumps to humans quickly?  Well, they started by not using eggs to produce it as that takes too long.  Maybe with time they could turn around a flu shot in 30 days, a big whoop, when it will be given to health care and infrastructure workers first.  At least, I could fight the West Nile with spraying my yard and putting out mosquito traps.  What could we really do for this except stay in our homes and hope we have enough food, and disinfect the mail.   

Its like having a five year old running around with matches, you know something bad is going to happen soon but there is that chance that it won't happen.  Humans have dealt with flu over centuries, it is not new, nor are pandemics.  It may not make the leap to human to human, but then it may.  If it does, we will not have much time to prepare.  And that is the point.  West Nile-mosquito spraying, anthrax-few incidents-more easily isolated.  Bird flu- we have birds coming down from Canada all the time, moving up from migration.  Really hard to not get sick birds eventually just like it is spreading in Europe, right now. Actually its starting to leap to isolated mammals. So, how long do you wait to prepare?  Until we have sick birds everywhere and somewhere, in the world there is a leap, a new strain happens that connects humans.  How long does it take for that strain to go around the world?  Not long, I would venture.  I know West Nile is dangerous and is around in the summer time, I do not ignore the 2% chance that I could be infected.  But at least I know, and I can do something to fight it as well as I could do something to prepare and not wait until its too late, and then say I could have.  I will probably start stocking up soon probably more toward the summer.  TW


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush.



And there seems to be the root of your problem. If you give up the preconceptions you have about the president, you are probably going to start seeing a lot more about the matter. Just accept that Bush can be intelligent and that he was briefed on the matter at some point before the conference and your ideas that the whole thing is a plot can fade away.


----------



## Xequat (Mar 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President answered the question thoughtfully, thoroughly, carefully and intelligently. Plain and simple, those adjectives are beyond the ability of George W. Bush.


 
Then so is a conspiracy of this magnitude.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 13, 2006)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Then so is a conspiracy of this magnitude.


 
Yes. Absolutely.

If that is true, and I believe it is, who has the ability to organize these actions? And who derives benefit from the government making the H5N1 virus an incident of national awareness? 

And lastly, assuming that it is not another person or group driving these actions ... is there a plausible reason for President Bush to become aware of H5N1? Is there a specific personality trait that might cause the President to behave as I have described - out of proportion with the threat?

TigerWoman - please do not think I am suggesting that no preparation take place. And I am not suggesting we wait. I am suggesting that proprotionality is askew. Beyond the Billions of Dollars we are spending, the President has talked of the military imposing quarantines. Fortunately, most Governors expressed disapproval of such talk, and we have not heard much from that since October.

What I am saying, is that by virtue of us being able to have a conversation about this virus - something that has not yet reached the Western Hemisphere - (and given that we are not world healthcare workers) - tells us something. Can you think of any other healthcare issues that would benefit from such attention, but aren't recieving any attention? 

What other viruses or dangerous materials aren't we aware of, because H5N1 is sucking all the oxygen out of the room?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 21, 2006)

It's nice to see this article. Besides, we can all be scared of Iran now. I hear they have enriched enough uranium to make a Mickey Mouse watch glow in the dark.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12358223/




> *Skeptics warn bird flu fears are overblown*
> 
> *Chicken Little alert?  Hysteria could sap money from worse health threats*
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 21, 2006)

There has always been a danger that some sickness or threat will take away money and attention from more serious threats. You can take a look at the amount of money that is spent trying to find a cure for AIDS as compared to the amount spent on heart disease and look at how many people die from each to see a good example of possible misplaced priorities. It is hardly an attempt to divert attention. Look at Laos and how much they have spent on trying to combat bird flu. They have never even had anyone die from it.

And of course, it is always a case where we look _backwards_ on something and say that there was too much attention and money spent on it. The other times seems to be that we look backwards and say we did not spend _enough_ time and energy on something. There is usually no way we can really tell beforehand short of a crystal ball.

Which is why these particular proposals of the president are so appealing to me. They are not only applicable to bird flu, but to the next disease that may threaten us. Considering just how many millions died during the Spanish Lady flu, it is nice knowing that there will be more safeguards in place even if it is not needed this year or even this decade.

Seriously, I think we can toss the idea that this is an attempt by the Bush administration to divert attention down the toilet. There has been no media push by the administration and there are just too many other goverments like Laos doing more than us to battle this threat. They all can't be part of the conspiracy.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 21, 2006)

I know someone who works in health care and they recieved training on the "upcoming" epidemic. How to handle swarmed hospitals, etc... They were told not to tell anyone about the details. Guess we'll see in due time.


----------



## still learning (Apr 22, 2006)

Hello, It was mention that if you cook the chicken or birds? ..the heat of the cooking process will kill the  bird flu, if they have them in them.

Not too sure if I will eat those? ...Aloha


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

Step right up, folks. To raise the fear level to Orange Alert, be sure to watch tonight ... 

Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America

http://abc.go.com/movies/birdflu.html



> There are times that test humanity and challenge the soul of a community or a nation. News images and headlines tell stories of rising waters, quaking ground and tragic acts by man himself. But the real story, the human story, is found in the lives changed forever, in the strength of the survivors, and the resilient hope that gives them the courage to recover.
> 
> Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America follows an outbreak of an Avian Flu from its origins in a Hong Kong market through its mutation into a virus transmittable from human to human around the world. The meticulously researched film stars Joely Richardson, Stacy Keach, Ann Cusack, Justina Machado, Scott Cohen and David Ramsey.


 
Sounds like a fun night in Wonkaland....


----------



## Don Roley (May 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sounds like a fun night in Wonkaland....



People have died from this. Kids have died from this. Small children whose only sin was to have chickens that got infected.

I know you don't like anything the president does. I realize you take the chance to attack him every chance you get. I may even agree that this independent media source is building up a story.

But after reading an account of the last few hours of a child dying of bird flu, seeing you make fun of the threat really rubs me the wrong way.

Please try to refrain in the future.


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> People have died from this. Kids have died from this. Small children whose only sin was to have chickens that got infected.
> 
> I know you don't like anything the president does. I realize you take the chance to attack him every chance you get. I may even agree that this independent media source is building up a story.
> 
> ...


 
How many people have died from this bird flu? Specifically? Over how much time? Would you care to make some comparisons to any other diseases? All deaths are tragic. But how about reading about the last hours of a child dying of dissentary ... how tragic is that? 

Answers to rhetorical questions

Since 2003, The WHO states 114 people have died from Bird Flu
Since 2003, the CDC statistics demonstrate that 6 million have died from Diarrheal diseases.
I guess it goes to show ... one death is a tragedy, a million, a statistic. 

How much money is the Walt Disney Company going to make off of this fear mongering made for TV movie? 

If my observations rub you the wrong way, please feel free to add me to your Ignore List.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 9, 2006)

Ok, lets try and keep some sense of politeness (is that a word?) in here. 
While everyone has there own opinions about issues like this, comparing one disease to a group of diseases and comparing a disease that is not currently contagious (on the human level) to those that are is not any way to make a solid point. The discussion about Bird Flu is really all about what it can, might, could, or will do; not what is has done already or is currently doing. I thought we all understood that.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2006)

It was almost a year ago that I heard the President give an eloquent, articulate, and informed answer to a complex question about the H5N1 Bird Flu virus.

Yesterday, the President could not complete a sentence in the English language when talking about the war in Iraq and the North Korean test detonation of an assumed nuclear weapon. He did say some nice things about the clothing a couple of reporters were wearing. 

The Presidents inarticulateness yesterday was so bad, that the Mike Barnicle show on WTKK did not broadcast the entire press conference. This is the same station upon which I heard the complete Press Conference and Bird Flu question last year at this time. 

I post this here, now, because, aren't we all supposed to be quarrantined from the deadly Bird Flu by now? And, why was he so articulate on that obscure subject a year ago, and unable to address coherently, the reality of the current situation in foreign policy? 

Things that make you go, Hmmm?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> The President just addressed the Bird Flu and the United States plan for a possible pandemic. He is requesting 1.2 billion dollars for vaccine to protect some 20 million Americans (presumably Health Care Workers and Republican Donors).
> 
> I think this is a scare tactic. The 'Terrorist Threat Alert' moving up and down is no longer working. We need a new bogey-man to keep us afraid. The President has suggested that an outbreak of Bird Flu could require the military to put in place a quarrantine.


 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22590623/

So, today, we hear the fears of a bird flu pandemic were 'overblown', the risks were 'overstated.



> Vallat said the H5N1 virus has proved extremely stable, despite concerns that it could mutate into a form that could spread easily among humans.
> 
> "We have never seen such a stable strain," Vallat said.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm ...


----------



## Shuto (Jan 10, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22590623/
> 
> So, today, we hear the fears of a bird flu pandemic were 'overblown', the risks were 'overstated.
> 
> ...


 
Is the threat overblown based upon what we know today or what we knew two years ago?  Did they know then that it was an unusually stable strain or is that more recent knowledge?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2008)

Shuto said:


> Is the threat overblown based upon what we know today or what we knew two years ago? Did they know then that it was an unusually stable strain or is that more recent knowledge?


 
I think with the quote I included, we knew at least that we didn't know. 

_"It was just nonscientific supposition," he told reporters. _

It is one thing to say 'we don't know if the sky is falling' ... and quite another to say 'the sky is falling'.  And I think the language of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the financial allocations by the President, put them squarely in the latter group.


----------



## Shuto (Jan 10, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> I think with the quote I included, we knew at least that we didn't know.
> 
> _"It was just nonscientific supposition," he told reporters. _
> 
> It is one thing to say 'we don't know if the sky is falling' ... and quite another to say 'the sky is falling'. And I think the language of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the financial allocations by the President, put them squarely in the latter group.


 
True, but if flu viruses normally mutate at a higher rate then the likelyhood of a lethal mutation increases and the warning isn't as overblown.  

If they said 'the sky might be falling' they would most likely have been ignored.  In retrospect, that may have been a good thing.  But if the viruses turned out to be less stable and it mutated so that it could easily pass between humans then a well qualified and ignored warning would not have been a good thing.  

I am no flu expert, but there sure were a lot of experts who thought this was a real threat at the time.  To criticize past decisions based upon new knowledge and understanding is just as wrong as knowingly overstating a threat.


----------

