Swine flu epidemic 'escaped from lab'

[Celebration]

Yes, this came up a few months ago, but now it is in a peer reviewed journal.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/swine-flu-epidemic-escaped-from-lab/story-e6frf7l6-1225804798759

The research, published in the Virology Journal on Tuesday, was compiled by two former researchers at the Australian National University - Dr Gibbs and programmer John S. Armstrong.

The article claimed the swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus that appeared in Mexico in April has at least three parent genes which originated in the US, Europe and Asia.

"The three parents of the virus may have been assembled in one place by natural means, such as by migrating birds, however the consistent link with pig viruses suggests that human activity was involved," the research found.

......................

"What we wanted to do was instigate debate about this again because we still don't know the source of this virus," Dr Gibbs said.

.......................

"Measures to restore confidence include establishing an international framework co-ordinating surveillance, research and commercial work with this virus and a registry of all influenza isolates held for research and vaccine production," the report concluded.

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:25949978902673::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,80241

Gibbs wrote or coauthored more than 250 scientific publications on
viruses, mostly pertaining to the plant world, during his 39-year
career at the Australian National University, according to
biographical information on the university's Web site. "Knowing
Adrian Gibbs, he will have thought through it pretty logically and
come to that conclusion," Lance Jennings, a clinical virologist with
Canterbury Health Laboratories in Christchurch, New Zealand, said in
a telephone interview. "It's up to someone else to try and prove it
or disprove it."

The long abstract is in the last link, as is a link to the journal

Edited to add this

We discuss a
published suggestion that unsampled pig herds, the intercontinental
live pig trade, together with porous quarantine barriers, generated
the reassortant. We contrast that suggestion with the possibility
that laboratory errors involving the sharing of virus isolates and
cultured cells, or perhaps vaccine production, may have been
involved. Gene sequences from isolates that bridge the time and
phylogenetic gap between the new virus and its parents will
distinguish between these possibilities, and we suggest where they
should be sought. It is important that the source of the new virus be
found if we wish to avoid future pandemics rather than just trying to
minimize the consequences after they have emerged. Influenza virus is
a very significant zoonotic pathogen. Public confidence in influenza
research, and the agribusinesses that are based on influenza's many
hosts, has been eroded by several recent events involving the virus.
Measures that might restore confidence include establishing a unified
international administrative framework coordinating surveillance,
research and commercial work with this virus, and maintaining a
registry of all influenza isolates."

Sounds like the Baxter Labs incident freaked them out a bit. Kinda sad that it has to be left to Australian researchers to remind the world of that. After a flurry of headlines, zilch. No explanation about what happened.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I

[mattvermont]

1. a perfect loop

Huge conglomerate Pharma develops a vaccine to any of the millions of microscopic critters sitting in lab freezers.
Lagging shareholder value requires "action" by simply walking down the street in Anywhere, World and introducing yourself
to a few people by shaking their hand......repeat as necessary

[MineralMan]

3. Another ignorant, speculative post. Don't you folks ever get tired

of spreading misinformation? So, now, point out an instance where what you stated ever happened...

Can't do it, can you? So, you're just spreading FUD. That's just disgusting and unconscionable.

[MineralMan]

2. Oddly enough, the article said nothing like what you put

in the headline. The statement, quoted by you directly, which best expresses the knowledge of science is:

"What we wanted to do was instigate debate about this again because we still don't know the source of this virus," Dr Gibbs said."

It's an interesting article. Why put an incorrect headline on it?

Aren't you embarrassed?

[Celebration]

4. LOL!!

I always post the title of the article so as not to put my own take on it.

Aren't you embarrassed?

Tell it to the Herald Sun.

[MineralMan]

5. Then the Herald Sun posted an inaccurate title.

That happens, too. In any case, the headline does not reflect the information in the article.

[trotsky]

7. Doesn't matter.

It says what the conspiracy/anti-vax nuts want to believe, so it is embraced and shouted from the rooftops.

[juno jones]

6. The Baxter Lab thing is just scary. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

8. Still the deniers using unrec.

Good ole Health forum. :eyes:

[trotsky]

9. That's because the OP and the claims within are bogus.

The WHO itself responded pretty quickly denying these claims. But then American big pharma controls EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE in the world, right?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/702862

"Based on that evaluation by all of the laboratories, the conclusion is that this group of scientists feels that the hypothesis does not really stand up to scrutiny," Dr. Fukuda said. "The evidence suggests that this is a naturally occurring virus and not a laboratory-derived virus."

[MineralMan]

10. Ah, but, you see, it's all futile. The powers that be will

never tell us the truth. That's the statement the tinfoil crowd always uses. They say, "Why won't the government tell us the truth?" whenever facts contradict their conspiracy theory. It's a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question.

[Why Syzygy]

19. "The government never lies to us".

If you believe THAT, YOU are the :tinfoilhat:

[Celebration]

11. and is this claim

in a scientifically peer reviewed journal, as does the claim referenced by the OP?

[trotsky]

12. You seem to have a colossal lack of understanding..

about what being published "in a scientifically peer reviewed journal" really means.

[Celebration]

13. LOL

Obfuscation!

An informal survey of scientists, without any further information than in the one statement, NOT responding to peer reviewed literature, is all you had to offer. It is meaningless, scientifically.

[trotsky]

14. Did you actually read what you posted?

The guy's paper basically said, either the virus was a lab accident, or it naturally arose. Yup, that will pass peer review because he didn't outright claim what YOU did.

But feel free to bash the WHO's scientists all you want. Won't bother me or them, I guarantee it.

[Celebration]

15. And what did I say?

All I did was quote the article. You are way off base here.

[trotsky]

16. No, "off base" would be quoting a totally misleading and inaccurate headline.

But I'm through kicking your conspiracy-o'-the-day thread. Make sure your tinfoil is wrapped tightly and take care.

[Celebration]

17. I always quote headlines

I do that for a reason--I don't want my personal opinion inserted into news stories that I post. If people are too lazy to read beyond a headline that is THEIR problem.

[Why Syzygy]

20. And the Ignored

can't resist posting to me even though they know they are The Ignored.

[Liberation Angel]

18. Bottom Line is its either MIHOP, LIHOP or an accidental release (link) It is an escaped virus

http://www.virology.ws/2009/03/02/origin-of-current-influenza-h1n1-virus/


Origin of current influenza H1N1 virus

by VINCENT RACANIELLO on 2 MARCH 2009
Influenza viruses of two subtypes, H1N1 and H3N2, have been causing respiratory infections in humans since 1977. Before that year, it was believed that only one human subtype circulated each flu season. How did this unusual situation come about?

Major changes in the surface glycoproteins of influenza virus – called antigenic shift – lead to worldwide epidemics of influenza known as pandemics. There have been six instances of antigenic shift since 1889. In that year, H2N2 viruses circulated, followed by H3N8 in 1900, H1N1 in 1918, H2N2 in 1957, H3N2 in 1968, and H1N1 in 1977. Each pandemic strain carries HA and NA proteins that have been absent in humans for many years, and therefore immunity is either very low or nonexistent.

Influenza viruses of the H3N2 subtype were still circulating in humans in May of 1977 when H1N1 viruses were isolated in China and then Russia. In the winter of 1977-78 the H1N1 viruses caused epidemic infection throughout the Northern Hemisphere. The results of serological tests indicated that the HA and NA glycoproteins of the 1977 H1N1 viruses were very similar to those from viruses of the same subtype which circulated in 1950. Palese’s group compared viral RNA of one 1977 isolate, A/USSR/90/77, with RNA from a virus isolated in 1950. To their surprise, the two viral RNAs were highly related. In contrast, there was less similarity between viral RNAs from the 1977 H1N1 virus and H1N1 viruses that circulated in humans between 1947 and 1956.

Why were the viral genomes of the 1977 H1N1 isolate and the 1950 virus so similar? If the H1N1 viruses had been replicating in an animal host for 27 years, far more genetic differences would have been identified. The authors suggested several possibilities, but only one is compelling:

…it is possible that the 1950 H1N1 influenza virus was truly frozen in nature or elsewhere and that such a strain was only recently introduced into man.

The suggestion is clear: the virus was frozen in a laboratory freezer since 1950, and was released, either by intent or accident, in 1977. This possibility has been denied by Chinese and Russian scientists, but remains to this day the only scientifically plausible explanation.