×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chicken Vaccines Combine To Produce Deadly Virus

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the wonder-twin-powers-activate dept.

Biotech 178

stoilis sends this quote from an article at Science: "Vaccines aren't supposed to cause disease. But that appears to be what's happening on Australian farms. Scientists have found that two virus strains used to vaccinate chickens there may have recombined to form a virus that is sickening and killing the animals 'This shows that recombination of such strains can happen and people need to think about it,' says Glenn Browning, a veterinary microbiologist at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, in Australia and one of the co-authors on the paper."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

178 comments

I imagine the Same can happen in the human body. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650317)

Line up for your Flu Shots!

- First Post, Long time reader , Anonymous Coward OFC.

Re:I imagine the Same can happen in the human body (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#40652507)

Line up for your Flu Shots!

Of course it can, just in the same way that all the current variations of flu can mix and match if you catch more than one of them at once. On the balance I assume it's safer to vaccinate and minimise the possibility of this happening.

Does it affect humans (0)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40650319)

Can you catch it if you eat a chicken?

Are aussie chickens exported? (If you order chicken at an Outback steakhouse do you get a bird grown in the USA?

(I am not an Australian you insensitive clod, I was born over 1200 miles away)

Re:Does it affect humans (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40650371)

Can you catch it if you eat a chicken?

No. Cross-species viruses are rare... Viruses co-opt cells to produce more viruses by injecting their own viral code into the DNA/RNA of the host cell. As a rule, those genetic sequences aren't "cross platform" any more than binary code on a computer is. Cross-species bacterial infection is far more common, as bacterium contains all the materials required to reproduce... it only requires a hospitable environment.

Are aussie chickens exported? (If you order chicken at an Outback steakhouse do you get a bird grown in the USA?

Chickens are raised in almost every country, and exported between them routinely. So yes, it's possible that the chicken you're eating in the USA was raised in Australia. Or the UK. Or China. The real question is, why the hell are you ordering chicken at a steakhouse? I mean, I'm a girl and even I order the steaks there. I'm not gonna go there and order a fucking caesar salad, it'd be blasphemous.

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650405)

Like avian flu viruses, right? Good thing chickens aren't... oh wait.

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650431)

He said rare. And even in those very rare cases, avian flu isn't contracted by eating cooked poultry.

Re:Does it affect humans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650557)

No. Cross-species viruses are rare...

Citation please he/she.

West Nile doesn't seem very rare here in Minnesota, Mr. Female. I have 3 friends that have recovered from the West Nile virus. Definitely not rare, especially in my parts of the woods (Minneapolis).

FUDster.

Re:Does it affect humans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650741)

Epic FUD detector sounding epically!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis#Partial_list_of_zoonoses

Holy Fucking Shit Balls Batman[TM] this partial list is not small by any sense of the word, and just look at how fucking many of those are viral!!! Rare is exactly the word I would NOT use to describe these forms of disease. Look at the history of zoonoses... "there is good evidence that measles, smallpox, influenza, HIV, and diphtheria came to us this way"

Well I guess that a boy pretending to be a girl pretending to be a doctor who may or may have not stayed at a Best Western Inn last night is correct, AIDS is super rare... Oh wait.

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650757)

you know three people with west nile virus.
there are the better part of 7 billion other people on earth without the virus.

that sounds like the very definition of "rare" to me.
if it affected any fewer perople, the correct term would be 'nonexistant'

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650629)

I ordered a salad at the Outback. But that is because I am a vegetarian. So what was I doing at the Outback? Celebrating my parent's anniversary with them (since they are NOT vegetarian, and that is their favorite restaurant).

I, for one, was happy that they had some vegetarian options. I wouldn't have gone at all, otherwise, or my parents would have had to pick a different place just for me (which would have made me feel like an ass).

Re:Does it affect humans (4, Informative)

WillDraven (760005) | about 2 years ago | (#40650983)

Totally off topic as to the article but relevant to vegetarian restaurant options. If you don't want to eat any meat products avoid Cracker Barrel. Everything there, from the mac and cheese to the collard greens has ham in it.

We learned this when we stopped there on a family trip with our Muslim brother in law. I think in the end all he dined on was bread-sticks and coke.

Re:Does it affect humans (1, Informative)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 2 years ago | (#40652431)

Things without pork at Cracker Barrel:
Eggs, Toast, Hashbrown casserole, Biscuits, Jelly, Apple Butter, Fried Apples, Turkey Sausage, Grits, Chicken Fried Chicken, Chicken Fried Steak, Fried Chicken Tenderloin, Buttermilk Pancakes, Pecan Pancakes, Blueberry Pancakes, French Toast, Eggs-in-the-Basket, Yogurt Parfait, Granola with Fruit and Yogurt, Oatmeal with Fried Apples, Oatmeal with Pecans, Oatmeal with Raisins, Oatmeal with Bananas, Blueberry Muffin, Bran Muffin, Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Special K, Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes, Wheaties, Egg Sandwich, Steak Biscuit, Sourdough Toast, Tenderloin Steak Biscuit, Half Pound Hamburger, Turkey Breast Sandwich, Grilled Chicken Tenderloin Sandwich, Chicken Salad Sandwich, Fried Chicken Tenderloin Sandwich, Catfish Sandwich, Grilled Meatloaf Sandwich, Open Faced Roast Beef, Onion Rings, Baked Potato, Steak Fries, Grilled Haddock, Lemon Pepper Grilled Rainbow Trout, Grilled Sirloin Steak, Rib Eye Steak, Roast Beef Dinner, Catfish Platter, Fried Shrimp Platter, Chicken and Dumplings, Hamburger Steak, Fried Chicken Livers, Beef Stew, Fried Okra, Coleslaw, Dumplings, Carrots, Corn, Apple Sauce, Grilled Chicken Salad, Turkey Salad, Fried Chicken salad, Chicken Salad salad, Garden Salad, Tossed Salad, Chicken and Dressing, Chicken Pot Pie, Turkey and Dressing, Butter Baked Chicken, Broccoli Cheddar Chicken, Fried Cod, Chicken and Rice, Homestyle Chicken

And that isn't even all the stuff on the menu that doesn't include pork, either, because I tried to leave out anything that sounded too repetitive and skipped desserts, drinks, kids meals and all the stuff that could be prepared with the pork left out.

I think you just didn't bother reading the menu very well or asking the server any questions about the dishes.

Re:Does it affect humans (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650815)

FWIW, The Outback Steak House isn't Australian. It's parent company (Bloomin' Brands, Inc.) is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, USA.
http://www.outback.com/companyinfo/

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651043)

You, however, did not answer, why did chicken cross ther road?

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40652021)

To infect the human on the other side.

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651161)

Cross-species viruses are rare? Just like two strains of vaccines re-combining and forming a new strain is rare? Well, gosh, then clearly there is nothing to worry about, because neither of those could ever happen!

Also, if chickens are raised in every country, why are they needlessly exported between them routinely?

Also, everyone needs to shut up and do what they're told, because questioning authority is a sign of paranoia and ignorance. Injecting crap into things and people is for the glorious good of mankind!

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651441)

Extinction level events are rare too. Then again, it only needs to happen once...

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40652007)

Fuck, I hope it wasn't wrote in Java.

Re:Does it affect humans (4, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#40652065)

Cross-species viruses are actually quite common, and it has nothing to do with the genetic sequences either; DNA is DNA and the code is evolved to build viruses. Usually the factor that prevents a virus from being cross species is that the surface protiens of the virus doesn't fit the receptors sites, but that can also occure in the same species. I'd be surprized if chickens are exported from Australia to the US, the cost of keeping them frozen durring shipment from Australia would be considerable and chicken just isn't that expensive.

Re:Does it affect humans (2, Insightful)

Dr Fro (169927) | about 2 years ago | (#40650943)

Barack Obama is as Australian as Outback steakhouse is.

Re:Does it affect humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651801)

Well, since we don't know where he was really born... he could be Australian.

The glory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650325)

How glorious it is to be chicken!
To hatch from an egg; To grow feathers!
To scratch the ground with my claws and beak!
To cluck!

Soon the gods themselves will consume my juicy flesh, and they shall exclaim:
"Behold, this chicken is good!"

This is Australia. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40650331)

Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.

Re:This is Australia. (0)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#40650415)

oh, the myxomatosis thing? How did that turn out?

That's right, they have more rabbits than ever. Bigger, faster, and stronger ones. Myxy only kills the weaker ones. The dingoes are even more out of their depth than ever.

If I could get down there with my air rifle, I'd be like a pig in mud. And very well fed.

Re:This is Australia. (4, Informative)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 years ago | (#40650571)

Myxomatosis was deliberately introduced in the 50s...I think the post was referring to the rabbit calicivirus which escaped from Wardang Island quarantine station in 1996. That's actually working quite well so far, in drier areas populations are down by as much as 90% (haven't splattered a bunny on the highway in years), however it remains to be seen whether they'll develop immunity.

Bunnies on the roads (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#40651091)

For a country teeming with large marsupials which have a tenancy to cream - rather than be creamed by - the impacting vehicle, I find concern about a running over a little bunny somewhat ironic.

Re:Bunnies on the roads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651463)

It wasn't concern, it was a way of measuring numbers

Re:Bunnies on the roads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651833)

Tenancy: "Possession of land or property as a tenant"

I think you meant "tendency", meaning "An inclination toward a particular characteristic or type of behavior".

Re:Bunnies on the roads (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 years ago | (#40652001)

Not concern; I've never bothered to avoid rabbits since they're pests, they don't do any damage to the car, and swerving or braking at speed is far more dangerous than just rolling over them. It's merely an anecdotal observation that there just aren't any to hit these days.

Re:Bunnies on the roads (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40652427)

You must have smaller rabbits there. Where I live (in California) there's rabbits big enough to crack your front plastics. Not an issue in my lifted pickup, is an issue in my stock classic diesel benzo

Re:This is Australia. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40650489)

Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.

It's a giant slab of land that's largely unpopulated, and every now and then some stupid mother fucker introduces an invasive species... Like rabbits. Keep it in context. That's no different than what they're doing in the United States to control mosquito populations.

Re:This is Australia. (3, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#40650685)

Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.

I remember that movie, it was called "Night of the Lepus".

lol (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650341)

Where is your God now?

in 3..2..1 (1, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 years ago | (#40650347)

Field day for anti vaccine people.

The problem is, they are not wrong.
Even if they usually don't see the problem.

It's not a matter of how many people vaccines have saved.
It's a matter of what is put into EACH vial of vaccine, for what purpose it is administered etc. etc. etc.

In this case, and in countless others, more precaution and testing should be performed. And vaccinations should not be the duct tape that keep the health of the poor chicken good enough, the animal should have good living conditions. No matter if the cost soars, because it simply approaches the real cost.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1, Troll)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40650441)

The anti vaccine people will just make up stuff if there aren't enough news stories.

The latest one I read is that polio isn't caused by a virus; it's the result of pesticides. The polio vaccine is just a giant conspiracy. And oh yeah the smallpox vaccine had nothing to due with the eradication of smallpox. Complete nutcases.

In the case of the chickens I am sure that the Aussie Dept of Agriculture will be more care to sequence these things in the future.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650799)

When characterizing your opponents, you choose the lowest common denominator. None of the critics I read "just make up stuff". Reason's first use was to dominate; to get what you want; to win. This explains double standards as exhibited in your post. (IE: YOU are just making stuff up!) If you were really interested, you would familiarize yourself with the most intelligent critics (some of whom are actually pro-vaccination in principle), with the wide variety of arguments out there, and with the curious lack of adequate testing. But you don't.... and you won't. Because you don't really want to know. You prefer sitting on the sidelines and ignorantly throwing mud at easy targets.

Re:in 3..2..1 (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40651277)

+ 1 insightful.

I am one of those who is pro-vaccination but also pro-choice. Just as I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to end-of-term, neither do I think people should be forced to inject stuff in arms.

I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.

Re:in 3..2..1 (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40651353)

The problem with your position is the fact that vaccines don't work unless a large percentage of the population is vaccinated.

Look what has happened in Nigeria with the effort to eliminate polio.

Cumulative decisions to not vaccinate have significant consequences to the rest of the population.

It is very unlike abortion.

Re:in 3..2..1 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651551)

You know what else doesn't work unless a large percentage of the population does it?

Communism. Yeah.

Re:in 3..2..1 (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40652105)

Yeah I don't buy that argument. If I am immunized from polio, what do I care if the unvaccinated idiot gets it? The disease doesn't affect me.

And if I'm on those who, like the bubble boy, can't develop immunities then that's MY problem to deal with. I still don't have a right to force someone to stick foreign substances into their body via injection. I am not their master and they are not my serf.

Re:in 3..2..1 (4, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#40652341)

I for one am looking forward to my future of a different needle for a different disease every day. That's the point of "eradicating" ad disease.

Why should I care if someone else gets infected? Well when I have a heart attack, if there's a hospital bed shortage due to some idiot that is burdening the health system all because they refused to get a vaccine shot when they were kids then I most damn well will care.

This isn't some theoretical crap either. This has actually happened to me. I was rushed to hospital with some heart problem when I was young. I sat in the waiting room and the nurses strapped the ECG on to me where I sat because there was no enough room in the hospital due to a myriad of other factors.

I'm not saying that people who didn't get vaccinated are at fault, just that they are a burden, a burden on my tax dollars used to provide basic healthcare in this country.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 years ago | (#40652549)

I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.

You do realize that you then accept these un-vaccinated children giving the diseases they contract to children who for one reason or another cannot receive the vaccines and that some will die?

Personal freedom is good and all, but your right to drive a car anywhere you want ends when you run over me. It's funny/sad that people clamored for these vaccines, and all but the nut cases really really wanted universal vaccination when this whole thing started. That was probably because looking at their children who had just died from measles or diphtheria or had to live paralyzed in an artificial ventilator wasn't all that much fun. The really sad part is that that might be exactly what will have to happen again to put this silly anti-vaccine movement in their place.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40651471)

I am sorry but that is baloney.

I don't care what subset you read. The fact is many of these criticisms are made up. Others are flat out fraudulent, or are put forward with corrupt intent like the Wakefield Lancet article. Some others are valid in that they point out real defects in the technology.

However not one of these criticisms are applicable to the point where it is morally valid to refuse to get a child vaccinated unless the child has a medical condition that makes the vaccination dangerous, such as compromised immune system.

As far as your criticism that I was making things up, a quick Google search will pull up references to the concepts I presented. So no, I wasn't making things up.

You were.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | about 2 years ago | (#40651643)

You're making way too much sense for slashdot. The guys here like to fancy they can think but still it has to remain simple! Radioactive bananas are ok.

Re:in 3..2..1 (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40650445)

The problem is, they are not wrong.

Nope. They're wrong. So are you. The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not. Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.

So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain. So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

Chicken Vaccine Waivers (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650623)

So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak? Stupid chickens!

Re:Chicken Vaccine Waivers (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#40652199)

So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak?

Farmers that didn't use the vaccine correctly caused a new strain of the virus to emerge. It isn't any worse than the old strains, except that it can infect birds that are immune to the older strains.

Re:in 3..2..1 (2)

Livius (318358) | about 2 years ago | (#40650765)

Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40650859)

Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.

That would mean the vaccinations are contaminated. That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.

Re:in 3..2..1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651671)

It is an argument against them actually, because it highlights the fact that they are man-made, and men are prone to error. For greed or incompetence or laziness or even just simple honest mistakes, and any number of other reasons, men make imperfect products. I think this is the argument that most of the smaller 'I don't trust vaccines but I don't think they are a government conspiracy' camp are basing their decision on. This incident shows how despite our arrogance, we still don't *completely* understand the forces we're tinkering with. If we did have a perfect understanding, we would have anticipated this in our model early in the design stage instead of discovering it after production. *That's* the problem with vaccines. We'll get there one day though, and soon, likely. Until then, I'm happy for someone else to be guinea pig.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40652433)

That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.

uh what? If there's a problem with the manufacturing process that results in contaminated vaccines then that certainly is an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit, though not an indictment of vaccination as a whole.

Re:in 3..2..1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651691)

If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

Ummm...If the vaccine works so well, and protects *you* so well, what danger is it if someone else doesn't vaccinate themselves. You seem to think that if the scientists work hard enough that disease will be eradicated completely.

To completely turn a quote around: "I find your faith disturbing."

The forces of nature are constantly fighting the scientists and nature *will* win - as the Law of Unintended Consequences has just proven out by the combination of vaccines that didn't *quite* work the way everyone expected. Mutations can have *much* more far-reaching effects than the geniuses can fathom.

It's the same world view that thinks that humans must control global warming (or is it climate change, whatever) because Planet Earth can't survive without our help. Planet Earth will kick *yours* and *mine*. Quite easily, in fact.

Re:in 3..2..1 (1)

kyrio (1091003) | about 2 years ago | (#40652171)

Okay, when your child is unable to be vaccinated due to medical conditions, or their vaccine just doesn't take, you're fine with the people who chose to not have vaccinations infecting your child, right? Same goes for yourself. You are okay with being infected by people who chose to have no vaccinations, right? Not due to medical reasons, but because they are mentally challenged, like you.

Re:in 3..2..1 (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | about 2 years ago | (#40651205)

As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong. So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.

Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor. Most of the time the benefits out weigh the risk, BUT. . . the more careless and cavalier the vaccines makers and advocates are the higher the risks become. Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

When the pro vaccine crowd become completely blind to the risks and start pushing every vaccine under the sun to everyone for everything its just begging for trouble. Vaccines should be used appropriately to deal with real risks. If the risks of the vaccine outweigh or approach the risk of the pathogen, or the risks of exposure to the pathogen are very low, you pro vaccine bigots can do as much harm or even more than the anti vaccine fanatics. Performing science experiments on millions of people isn't a particularly great idea unless you need to deal with a real risk, and have a well understood solution.

Re:in 3..2..1 (2)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#40651695)

I'd upvote if i had mod points. Getting tired of being caught in the middle of 2 extremist views, each one labelling me as being the other.

Did the chickens go autistic? (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#40650351)

Pretty interesting (but not totally surprising) that viruses can combine and recombine like this. They're remarkably good at changing to defeat a host's defenses.

Not very stable -- good survivability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650535)

Virusus (virii?) are remarkably unstable for what they are. So they are constantly mutating and changing randomly. Most of those mutations aren't viable, but they make it up in numbers. Even if a very, very small percentage of a mutation is better equiped to handle the situation the host presents it is going to thrive. And those generations are mutating as well, getting better and better at surviving. Random mutations will, eventually, get it right. Short lifespan (for lack of a better word), coupled with an enormous amount of 'offspring' is incredibly good at adapting to changing environments.

No matter what you do, it will mutate to work around your defenses. Unless you wipe out the whole lot of 'm in one sweep. Like antibiotics are supposed to, but you have to finish the whole prescription. Not finishing the prescription (hey, you have no symptoms anymore, why not quit?) will make sure the surviving viruses will adapt, eventually, to get immune to the antibiotic used.

Long story short: finish your antibiotics prescription even if you're not sick anymore; and don't take antibiotics if you don't need them.

Re:Not very stable -- good survivability (4, Insightful)

thephydes (727739) | about 2 years ago | (#40650809)

Except that antibiotics do not kill virii - part of the problem with overuse of antibiotics is the general belief that they help with viral infections. Let me repeat...... antibiotics DO NOT kill virii.

Re:Not very stable -- good survivability (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about 2 years ago | (#40652049)

Except that antibiotics do not kill virii - part of the problem with overuse of antibiotics is the general belief that they help with viral infections. Let me repeat...... antibiotics DO NOT kill virii.

what's that you said? antibiotics kill virii but only if you use the whole bottle?

Re:Not very stable -- good survivability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40652451)

Stop fucking saying "virii". Firstly, we're speaking fucking English, not fucking Latin. Secondly, "virii" is not the fucking Latin plural for "virus". Go fuck yourself and stop overcorrecting because you think you're being smart. You're just fucking wrong, so speak fucking English properly.

Re:Did the chickens go autistic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650753)

They probably used live virus in the vaccinations for cost reasons. The viruses recombine once they infect the same cell.

Re:Did the chickens go autistic? (1)

jovius (974690) | about 2 years ago | (#40651911)

If you have billions and billions of units almost everywhere the adaptation happens quite quickly. It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world or is there always a feedback mechanism that keeps them leashed. Traditionally viruses have kept the population sizes in control diminishing themselves in the process. The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest.

Re:Did the chickens go autistic? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#40652005)

"It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world"

A virus, as per the very definition, requires a living host for its metabolic processes.

So it's either not a virus or no, it won't eventually conquer the world.

"The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest."

If "we", the true living forms, have survived about a billion years the attacks of virus, I'd bet our odds can't be so bad.

Malcolm warned you (1, Funny)

kms_one (1272174) | about 2 years ago | (#40650353)

Life...finds a way

Re:Malcolm warned you (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40650465)

Yeah, well, I'm still waiting for my T-rex I can ride through rush hour traffic. Life might find a way, but it's sometimes helluva slow at doing it. Evolution doesn't operate on a fixed timescale... it stagnates sometimes, and other times leaps forward in epic fashion.

Re:Malcolm warned you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650467)

We aren't sure yet if a virus' constitutes "life". Unless you meant "Life" finds a way to get hurt.

Re:Malcolm warned you (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#40650481)

I never did trust those chickens. They look dumb, but that's just a disguise. Now they're coming for us just because all their ancestors were so damn delicious!. Great. We're doomed. Game over for the humans, man. Pack your shit, here come's the new species to dominate the planet!

Combined? (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40650385)

They combined more than one chicken vaccine to form a bigger, badder defense against evil?

Go Poultron Force!

Re:Combined? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#40650869)

Combined vaccines [cdc.gov] really aren't that novel, actually. Catastrophic side-effects from combining them, on the other hand... well, in human medicine that kind of thing would be rigorously tested in a laboratory first. The use of antibiotics and vaccines in factory farming isn't exactly a health-conscious mindset.

Don't panic. This is only a test. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650449)

Of course, it's a test for a procedure that can be used in the culling of the human population later this century.

Remember, we have to be reduced to 500 million by 2100.

Re:Don't panic. This is only a test. (1)

Jesus_C_of_Nazareth (2629713) | about 2 years ago | (#40650761)

Help ma boab! Obama, that scunner, is oot ta git us! Would be braw if that Jennie McCarthy lassie would save us!

Re:Don't panic. This is only a test. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650847)

If it were only Obama you wouldn't have much to worry about but the executive office is certainly playing a part and has been since Bush 41. Watch the executive orders that have been coming out and compare them to the requirements of U.N. Agenda 21.

Deadly Bird Flu (2)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 2 years ago | (#40650473)

How the next strain of deadly bird flu will occur is that a human will get both bird flu and swine flu at the same time and the viruses will eventually swap enough material to create a super-virus. Biologists already know this so it shouldn't be a surprise that it happens with live vaccines that are conjoined in the same body also.

Re:Deadly Bird Flu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650609)

this is herpes... you're an idiot.

Re:Deadly Bird Flu (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#40652351)

Herpes, the same family as cold sores that keep coming back and back or genital herpes tha keep coming back and back or chicken pox, that comes back a shingles 40 years later; herpese is like cheap lugage, once you get it, you're stuck with it forever. If any virus is going to get it's DNA mixed with another organisms DNA it's one of the the herpes viruses.

The real problem is inadequate characterization... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40650873)

... and it's not even a big problem here.

The live virus vaccines used here weren't characterized (sequenced) with respect to which mutations attenuated their replicative abilities. Since the mutations were complementary, one (of many) recombinations of the viral genomes produced a strain which possessed neither of the mutations. The probability of the resultant strain arising would be lower if no such vaccines were administered, as there would be fewer hosts for the virus (more dead chickens). On the other hand, the severity of the resultant epidemic would be greater if no such vaccines were administered.

If the resultant strain has some inherent advantage over its parents then we have a big problem. If not, then we actually have mitigated a problem.

I am not an evolutionary biologist but I am a medicinal chemist specializing in vaccines.

Questions?

Cue the theme from "12 Monkeys" ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651053)

The other day we saw the article which described how fools in Georgia USA were playing
around with inserting old DNA into present day E. Coli.

Now there is this.

It's just a matter of time before the excrement impacts the turbine.

How do 2 dead viruses combine into 1 living one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651327)

How do 2 dead viruses (vaccines, by definition, are dead viruses) combine into one living virus. Is this some kind of Frankenstein magic? Since when are vaccines, consisting of live viruses, used on chickens? Am I the only one noticing this unexplained question?

Re:How do 2 dead viruses combine into 1 living one (2)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | about 2 years ago | (#40651751)

Viruses are not decidedly living nor dead as far as we can tell. They are more like parasites to living cells but cannot be defined as living by themselves as they do nothing a living being does (in particular eating). They are "deactivated" in a vaccine, i.e., they have their most "toxic" part removed.

Also you should not have been downvoted for asking a genuine question.

Re:How do 2 dead viruses combine into 1 living one (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40651811)

These were attenuated viruses, which are weakened but not outright killed. Those are also sometimes used in humans. It's more effective than viruses that have been completely killed and obliterated into their marker proteins.

Re:How do 2 dead viruses combine into 1 living one (2)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#40652037)

"vaccines, by definition, are dead viruses"

No, they aren't.

Vaccines, by definition, are agents that induce immunity to a given virus infection with a lower health cost than the real threat. It can be a "dead" virus, it can be an attenuated one, it can be protein group... as long as it produces the intended effect, it's a vaccine.

blame statisticians! (1)

joocemann (1273720) | about 2 years ago | (#40651507)

It is the sole duty of a statistician in science to prove nonabsolute with a "confidence" that makes it seem absolute.

In this case it would appear that th vaccines contained virii/particles that were "statistically not replicating" but were actually doing so (else no recombination could have even survived).

Statisticians give confidence, but that confidence should always be heeded and with caveat.

Precaution principle anyone? (0)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | about 2 years ago | (#40651615)

But I thought vaccines were perfectly safe and anybody doubting the dogma was a hopeless idiot?

Re:Precaution principle anyone? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#40652421)

No rational person ever said vaccines were perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that the benefits doesn't vastly outweigh the risks for almost everyone.

No such thing as 'vaccination'... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40651965)

Dr Hadwen was right, over a hundred years ago...

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

Still waiting for ONE rebuttal of anything he said. Isn't that strange. The braindead, know-it-all Slashdot crowd believe in 'man made global warming', that HIV causes AIDS (when they don't even know what the definition of AIDS is!), are sociopaths who couldn't care less about animals in laboratories and factory farms, and also believe that the 'vaccination' industry are more honest than the pharmaceutical industry! LOL.

If anybody could point me in a point by point rebuttal of any of Dr.Hadwen's talks, I'd be VERY interested. After all, the entire world has had over a hundred years to rebut him...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...