Spanish Flu: I am skeptical

M

MetaKron

Registered Senior Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16670768/wid/11915773?GT1=8921

"In the Winnipeg research, the first-of-its-kind controlled introduction of the 1918 flu to primates, the monkeys were given extra high doses of the flu virus by nose, mouth, eye, and direct injection into the trachea to ensure infection."

Just how much flu virus do they mean by "extra high doses"? How could it possibly be a surprise that the flu burned through the monkeys so quickly? At some point when a researcher works to make a concentrated dose of an active agent, it becomes concentrated enough to burn through anything. This kind of experiment does not sound to me to be like anything close to a model of a natural infection. If they would just say that this was approximately the amount of virus that a human would receive when sneezed on by another infected human, then I would have a lot less trouble with the idea.

From reading this article I have serious doubts of the validity of the experiment.
 
Well, that's news. There's no such thing as HIV, and now - surprise! - there's no such thing as Spanish Flu.

Tell me, MetaKron, do you believe there are ANY disease-causing viruses?
 
Here is the method of the original paper in Nature.
Determination of the lethal dose for the 1918 virus in mice

Isoflurane-anaesthetized 6-week-old female BALB/c mice were intranasally inoculated with 10-fold serial dilutions (five mice per dilution) of virus in 100 l of phosphate-buffered saline and monitored daily for disease symptoms and survival. The LD50 was calculated using the method of Reed and Muench27.
Viral pathogenicity in nonhuman primates

Ten cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis), 9–19 years old, weighing 3.7–12 kg, were confirmed seronegative against current H1N1 and H3N2 influenza reference viruses by haemagglutination inhibition assay. Animals were infected with K173 (n = 3), as a conventional human virus control, and 1918 (n = 7) viruses through a combination of intratracheal (4 ml), intranasal (0.5 ml per nostril), intraocular (0.5 ml per eye) and oral (1 ml) routes with suspension containing 106 PFU ml-1 (infectious dose by all routes is 7 106 PFU). Before infection and on days 3, 6 and 8 post-infection, blood and oral, nasal, throat, genital and rectal swabs were collected from anaesthetized animals and suspended in 1 ml of MEM containing 0.3% bovine serum albumin and antibiotics (MEM/BSA). Animals were monitored daily for clinical signs, using an approved scoring sheet, and on days 3, 6 and 8 post-infection vital signs including pulse rate, blood pressure, temperature, respiration rate and blood O2 saturation, as measured by pulse oximetry, were recorded.

One K173- and two 1918-virus-infected animals were euthanized on day 3 and on day 6 post-infection; all remaining animals were euthanized on day 8 post-infection for complete necropsy. Tissue samples were placed in RNAlater (Ambion) for subsequent RNA extraction (Qiagen RNAlater kit). The remaining tissue was fixed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin. Fixed tissues were dehydrated, embedded in paraffin, cut into 5-m-thick sections and stained with standard haematoxylin and eosin. For viral antigen detection, sections were processed for immunostaining by the two-step dextran polymer method (DAKO), with a rabbit polyclonal antibody to WSN.

All animal experiments were performed under an approved animal-use document and according to the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
Click to expand...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7125/full/nature05495.html

MetaKron said:
Just how much flu virus do they mean by "extra high doses"?
Click to expand...
 
James R said:
Well, that's news. There's no such thing as HIV, and now - surprise! - there's no such thing as Spanish Flu.

Tell me, MetaKron, do you believe there are ANY disease-causing viruses?
Click to expand...

What makes you ask that? Just because I doubt this model of this infection?
 
You'll be pleased to learn that you're not the only one aware of the possibility of invalid results as a consequence of unnatural infection strategy.

From the ScienceNOW article:

"But the study was unrealistic in that the monkeys were infected through the mouth, nose, and trachea. Victims in 1918, in contrast, were only infected through their noses."

You see, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusions, but it does need to be considered and be noted about the experiment so as to be investigated more thoroughly in the future.

The researchers resorted to this infection strategy to ensure that infection occurred, something which is not a surety in a natural course of infection. I.e. everyone exposed to the Spanish Flu didn't get infected by it.

I'm sure they had their reasons for this. Possibly a limit in funding so they wished to make the utmost use of their lab animals. Perhaps a time limit. Who knows?

But, although the infection was begun in odd ways, there still seem to be some unusual properties to this variant of the virus. A more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of the flu virus will be a great step forward in biology/virology.

The 'cure for the common cold'. Always on the horizon, perhaps someday to be achieved.

We can dream, can't we?

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/117/2

Also:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070117134419.htm
 
"They had their reasons" and "doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusions" aren't really good enough for early 20th century science, you should know.
 
Why not?
Every experiment can't cover every variable.
Science works in steps.

Anyway, my point was simply that your point has already been raised by the scientific community. It's called peer review.
However, this point is so basic that I wouldn't be surprised to see it raised in the original paper as well. (Above and beyond, that is, the ordinary 'methods' section of the paper.)

This doesn't mean that useful data cannot be gleaned from the experiment.
Just knowledge with an applied asterisk.


By the way, early 21st century. Not 20th.
 
It sounds like it's easy to talk around the peer review.
Click to expand...

How so?
The methods are available for inspection. And they've already been commented on in the community.
You think the whole paper should not have been published at all because it didn't exactly simulate the natural course of infection?
It obviously wasn't meant to.
 
They want to make dramatic statements about "cytokine storms" which are, just incidentally, the excuse used to use Prednisone as an "adjunct therapy" which aggravates pneumonias. They got their "cytokine storm" by adding a lot more virus than a natural source of infection does. What I worry about it is a qualitative difference, brought on by introducing the infectious material by unnatural means. One thing that this means is that we still don't have an animal model for naturally acquired infections of this type.
 
Really, it's so obvious that I don't know how the "peers" can go along with it. The virus is introduced in a form that does not exist in nature. There might be millions of times as much virus. The solution that carries it might carry the virus right past any natural protections that the lungs have. Then it is on the fast track to an "aggressive" infection because it has been forced into places where it would not have existed after a natural infection, a lot more places a lot sooner.

There is no good reason not to try to model the course of a natural infection, and there is no good reason to try to fast-track an infection. So the study takes a few weeks longer, or they find out that they can't do it the old-fashioned way. Why the hell not?
 
The virus is introduced in a form that does not exist in nature.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Spanish Flu doesn't even exist in nature, yes?
Well, it actually does exist in Nature magazine...

Anyway.
You're worried about being inappropriately medicated for a flu that is only existent in laboratories?

There is no good reason not to try to model the course of a natural infection, and there is no good reason to try to fast-track an infection. So the study takes a few weeks longer, or they find out that they can't do it the old-fashioned way. Why the hell not?
Click to expand...

Well, Metakron, hop your happy little ass on your bicycle and go get a phd in virology and make them fuckers stop raping the world with their corruption of science.
Show 'em the right way.
The ethical way.
You seem to be the expert.
You certainly know much more than people actually in the field... we know that for sure.
 
Invert, some kind of groupthink has made these people so that they handle hi-tech tools, but they handle them in a moronic fashion.
 
It is a valid worry that I might be improperly medicated for a flu that only exists in laboratories. Trouble is, the talk of the "cytokine storm" will inspire doctors to prescribe massive dosages of Prednisone that will increase greatly the chances of fatal pneumonia. There are all sorts of people out on the net who for some reason feel, just coincidentally, inspired to deny that this happens, but Prednisone will be the drug of choice. There will also likely be some quackery involving serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which will greatly alter the moods of people who are already sick with whatever virus is going around plus the effects of inappropriate medication.

It is the kind of thinking that this will inspire in doctors that will hurt us. "Radical" treatments will become even more routine for common illnesses.
 
For crying out loud, they jammed 7 milliliters of the stuff down the windpipes of animals who weighed less than 25 pounds. They coated the entire insides of their lungs with infectious material. This is not a valid model of the course of a natural infection. How would it be anything but aggressive when they effectively assaulted the entire pulmonary system at once, not just with the virus, but all the other garbage that was in the culture?

Also, only crazed greedheads would want 30 dollars for one article.

You seem to think you have science but all you actually have is another fancy way to screw up reality.
 
This is not a valid model of the course of a natural infection.
Click to expand...

And no one has claimed it is.

Also, only crazed greedheads would want 30 dollars for one article.
Click to expand...

Yeah.
The cost of scientific journals is pretty high.
Or so I used to think.
But, I subscribed to Science last year and I think it's well worth the money.
It's a weekly publication.
52 issues for 100 bucks or so.
Of course, newstand price is 10 bucks a pop... Crazy.

My subscription to Science is just about up and I'm wondering if I should renew it or go for Nature instead...

Off-topic, tis true.
 
Oh.
And, hey, Metakron.
You've heard of controls, right?

Animals were infected with K173 (n = 3), as a conventional human virus control
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, even though the control monkeys were infected in the same manner as the spanish flu monkeys.... they recovered... well, were on the road to recovery until they were killed for necropsy.


You do pussy bleed a lot.
Click to expand...

That's my asshole, asshole.

Is this how immunologists get their jollies?
Click to expand...

No. This is how immunologists get their jollies:

...rectal swabs were collected from anaesthetized animals
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top