Replies

"Yup. They found it needs two mutatations on the Glycine Receptor Array to become highly transmissible between mammals." - Termite_Commander

The fact is that the experts don't know how many mutations it will take to get H5N1 to go H2H. Dr. Nabarro just got his ass handed to him for suggesting "2 mutations away", because he couldn't prove it. If you can show us where one expert has demonstrated what it takes, then show us. During an interview with Dr. Jeff Taubenberger (the man who re-recreated the 1918 pan-virus) a couple of months ago, he was asked to evaluate how many mutations it would take to make H5N1 "1918-Like" (assuming it is even following a parallel evolution, which is unknown). The follow is what he had to say:

“But whereas the 1918 virus may have had 30 changes, the H5 viruses that we see have no more than a small handful of these changes. Luckily, if this is the process that is going on, we are seeing a very early development. We are at a very early stage.” - Dr. Taubenberger late-2005

A study was conducted, and the scientists who did it concluded that two amino acid insertions into H5N1 would cause a pandemic.

As you know, Nabarro is the head of the WHO's avian influenza control effort. You really think he'd risk completely blowing his reputation and perhaps his job by using data from a junk science study?

And what really puzzles me is how you say that experts can't predict how many mutations are necessary, and then go on to quote Dr. Taubenberger's "30 changes" statement. Shouldn't he be scorned just as greatly as Dr. Nabarro has been if he's predicting how the virus will mutate? The fact is that most of the changes in H1N1 that created a pandemic strain are on the HA protein. Because this protein is different in H5N1, H1N1 can't accurately be applied.

In short,

Nabarro was using a study which looked at the H5N1 virus to speculate about future H5N1 mutations.

Taubenberger was using a study which looked at the H1N1 virus to predict future H5N1 mutations.

And yet you find the latter more accurate? How can you justify that? You dismiss Nabarro's comments because they have not been reproduced in a lab, but you use the "30 mutations away" comment even though it lacks the same criteria. Why should we trust what Taubenberger says since those +/- 30 mutations have not been applied to H5N1 in a lab? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about, right?

You may very well be right in that the virus would need more than two mutations to become a pandemic. However, I wouldn't dismiss Nabarro's comments so flippantly. What if he is right? Is it safer to say "The virus could become a pandemic tomorrow" or "The virus is no great danger at the moment"?