SARS BUG DEADLIER THAN AIDS SAYS DOC

Daily Record ^

[snickeroon]

Seems to me, the even bigger quandry lies in TWO stories that have been all over the place in recent days. The first, is a report which says that SARS is rapidly mutating....not uncommon in a new virus, evidently. The second, is a recent update which I am reprinting from the Promed mail archive website:

"SARS - WORLDWIDE (64): ETIOLOGY
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Wed 23 Apr 2003
Source: BBC News online, Wed 23 Apr 2003 [edited]

Canadian scientists cast doubt on cause of SARS

---

So far, more than 4000 people worldwide have fallen ill with SARS, which kills in 4 per cent of cases. In Canada, more than 300 are either "probable" or "suspected" of having SARS, and 15 are reported to have died. The outbreak centers on the city of Toronto.

The World Health Organization says it is reasonably certain that SARS is caused by infection with a new strain [species] of coronavirus. However, Canadian scientists have carried out hundreds of tests on samples from patients diagnosed as suspected or probable cases of SARS in Canada. They
have found that only 40 per cent of people carried the new [species] of coronavirus. In addition they found evidence of the strain [the new species of coronavirus] in healthy people enlisted as "controls" for the experiment.

The results, from the Canadian National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, contradict those from scientists in Hong Kong, where more than 100 people have so far died from the illness. The Hong Kong team found that 90 per cent of probable SARS cases harboured the [new] coronavirus, and found no trace of it in healthy controls. Researchers around the world are
scrambling to provide diagnostic tests and treatments, and even working towards vaccines, on the basis that coronavirus is the root cause. If it is not actually caused by coronavirus, then these efforts would be in vain.

Many experts believe it will be some years before an effective vaccine for this new strain of coronavirus is available.

Dr Frank Plummer, who led the Canadian research, said that: "There remain some very puzzling things we are finding. "I'm still not convinced it's coronavirus -- although it could well be, but the data are not conclusive."

Still seems a lot like a manufactured virus ....then again, my background is not medical.

[Jorge]

These drugs are extremely expensive and obviously people with AIDS don't pay from their own pocket.

Many do pay from their own pockets...The post I was responding to was claiming that only the very wealthy can pay for AIDS drugs.

But of course health insurance pays for most of these drugs, which is also true of drugs for many other conditions which cost thousands of dollars a year to treat.

Everyone pays, in the form of higher insurance or taxes.

When it comes to the health of productive individuals the cost of the drugs is much less than costs for hospitalization and drugs for those who become ill.
Studies have shown that AIDS drugs are more cost- effective than customary treatments for several other diseases.

Meanwhile, people with AIDS can keep giving it to other people. I mean, who gives AIDS to people - those with AIDS or those without AIDS???

So what is your point? When it comes to those with diseases that can infect others..the goal is to have them die as soon as possible?

[patriciaruth]

How do we know that SARS isn't just old fashioned pneumonia?

The virus that causes SARS has been isolated and proven to cause the disease.

If by "old fashioned pneumonia" you mean the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae, once named Diplococcus pneumoniae, then it could be easily cured, because, with rare exceptions, most bacteria are suseptible to antibiotics. Viruses in the main, however, are not suseptible to common antibiotics, or even the few anti-viral drugs that exist.

Still, I believe our sanitation with isolation for cases will keep SARS in check in the U.S., as this virus is not "highly" contagious, despite the hype.

It's also helpful that we don't have as many travelers to communist countries as socialist Canada has.

[Jorge]

I'm not telling you to be offended so please don't be.
I'm just saying that I think it's a matter of time before the AIDS lobby starts feeling threatened by the attention that SARS is getting and believe this could be a step in that direction.

So the AIDS people are jealous of the SARS people.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

When health officials are sounding all kinds of warning bells, but a guy who is seen as a leading figure in the fight against AIDS blatantly downplays the threat of SARS, I'd say that there's a good chance that it's being done for political reasons.

Or perhaps it to reassure a community that's already afflicted by more than it's share of infirmities....and is probably more vulnerable to SARS than others?

Perhaps you are being a bit cynical to see this as people with diseases competing for more attention and funds? I hope so.

Now a question for you: What did you mean when you asked whether I thought you should be offended because it came from a gay website? I really do not understand your point.

I didn't mean anything more than I said.
What you quoted sounded like a hopeful outlook amid the panic over SARS.
I was just asking you why we should look for a more cynical ulterior motive...just because it came from a gay organization?

[InShanghai]

Iraqi Information Minister Reports on SARS Outbreak!

Full report

[InterceptPoint]

The virus that causes SARS has been isolated and proven to cause the disease.

What is the virus? And is it found in 100% of the SARS cases? 99% is not good enough. In fact 100% is not good enough. You have to prove causality. Has it been proven? If so, how?

[First Amendment]

So what is your point? When it comes to those with diseases that can infect others..the goal is to have them die as soon as possible?

Of course not. Does it give you the jollies to imagine that everyone who thinks homosexual behavior is not normal is a cruel person who wants others to die? Do you then feel more self-righteous, to think others are evil?

I have two points - first, is that AIDS drugs are often way more expensive than other drugs. It's thousands of dollars a month, last I heard and I can't imagine anyone pays for them out of pocket.

Second, because AIDS is primarily a disease that people conract through behavior that they choose to engage in, why should I or others pay for it? Since the huge majority of AIDS cases are directly or very slightly indirectly caused by men having sex with men, or intravenous drug users, or prostitution, why should I have to pay more? People who have AIDS keep giving it to others. What quarantine for them?

[Beck_isright]

The CDC held a news conference yesterday and stated the mortality rate at 5.9%. In an interview on the BBC, this same doctor projected the theory that because of the nations in the Third World with poor health care systems, there could be up to 1 billion people infected in approximately 60 weeks. Do the math and let me know if you think SARS is really that bad. The airlines are freaking out and so are our tourist industries here in Florida because of the number of Asian and Canadian visitors we get here every week (in other words it's a good time to short Disney stock).

[Beck_isright]

I'll try to do a search for this, but there was one doctor who wondered what hapens when SARS mutates with an AIDS infected individual. I think we should just build the wall around San Francisco now and be done with it.

[THEUPMAN]

up to 1 billion people infected in approximately 60 weeks.
do you have a link to that? did they really use the term "60 weeks" ..... just curious.

[LocalYokel]

"I’m not sure that’s real great news. Apologies for sounding so heartless but: The ability to hang around for 15 years, potentially infecting more people, is the downside view."

Oh..so when it comes to those who contract diseases that could potentially infect others...the sooner they die the better.

You're right..that is heartless.

No disagreement from me. Yes it is heartless. The disease, I mean. The realities of it are terrible. And one of those realities is that the longer a person with it survives, the longer the potential for infecting others. I’m not preaching involuntary confinement (like Cuba), or even social segregation, but we do need to face facts. I’m certainly not hoping for early death for anyone, but the facts are the facts. "Sooner they die the better"? Those were not my words or thoughts but yes, the fact is, it would be better from the disease transmission point of view. Not from the humanitarian point of view. A fatal communicative disease that kills in hours doesn’t get spread as far or as fast as one that kills in years. Odd how morality so often becomes not a choice between good and bad, but a choice between bad and worse.

[biblewonk]

Wait till all the HIV+ and bug chasers get SARS too.

[biblewonk]

With approximately 6 million dead per hundred million infected,

Wow it kills 5 people who don't have it for every person who does have it. Now that's a nasty bug.

[newgeezer]

Okay. Whatever you say. ;-)

[Beck_isright]

No link yet. I thought he said 60 months when I first heard the interview last night. Then Neil Boortz read part of the transcript this morning and said 60 weeks also! That's pretty damn scarey if true.

[riri]

Love your screen name. That's what my husband and I call his boss. The old...

What is the url for that board? I would be interested in reading it. Is it in English?

[riri]

Nover mind, I scrolled down and saw the url.

[Jorge]

"So what is your point? When it comes to those with diseases that can infect others..the goal is to have them die as soon as possible?"

Of course not. Does it give you the jollies to imagine that everyone who thinks homosexual behavior is not normal is a cruel person who wants others to die? Do you then feel more self-righteous, to think others are evil?

Huh? Where did you get the idea I imagine everyone who "thinks homosexual behavior is not normal" is "cruel" or "evil"?
I happen to share the veiw that homosexuality is not normal.

You are getting way too defensive.

The fact is, I presented an argument that as costly as AIDS drugs are, they are in many cases more cost effective than treating other conditions, and keep many as productive contributing members of society.

Your response was "Meanwhile, people with AIDS can keep giving it to other people."

Now go read my response again.

Is the goal therefore to have them die as soon as possible?