technetium Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Hi scienceforums, as a biology noob I wonder if anyone can explain, With of about 10,000 confirmed cases of swine flu worldwide and about 100 deaths it has about a 1% mortality rate. As I understand it much of the concern is that it could mutate into an easier spreading or even more potent strain. So, if I had no access to antiviral drugs or immunisation would taking my chances and catching the current form of the virus, allowing my body to recognise it, form antibodies and (hopefully ) overcome it, confer on me any resistance to a possible more potent future strain, assuming the new strain is not too different from the current ones? When confronted by a new strain of the virus would my existing antibodies then say "Ah, we've seen something like this before and we know just where to hit it!" (antibodies speaking English and all)? Any clarifications appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Thats a flu shot right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 If it mutates into a more potent strain your immune system will probably not recognize it from exposure to the weaker variant. If the virus mutates enough to become far more virulent, it will probably also be unrecognizable by your immune system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 chances are it will only protect you for a few months maybe even as long as a year after that it will have mutated so much you'll get infected again. just like normal flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexTehManiac Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 My opinion on it: In my opinion it is a genetically engineered virus released from a lab somewhere. My info on it: I believe that if you caught it your immune system wouldn't be able to handle it, check the news about death tolls from Swine flu, etc. and you'll see what I mean about it. Research it by all means, put it under a microscope, whatever. You could always try swabbing it into a plant's genomes (or whatever it is) and try out the effects of it on a plant, maybe their immune systems have a system for fighting it off.. If you have any luck on finding this info let us all know here at SFN. It may be hard to get hold of a swine flu injection/sample due to national security, so on so forth. Regards, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDG Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 ***You could always try swabbing it into a plant's genomes (or whatever it is) and try out the effects of it on a plant, maybe their immune systems have a system for fighting it off.. ***Regards, Alex I'm just wondering what you think such an experiment would prove? Although plant viruses do exist, plants are not susceptible to animal viruses and vice versa. Plants wouldn't need to do anything to fight off swine flu: they're naturally immune just because they are plants. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHi scienceforums, as a biology noob I wonder if anyone can explain, With of about 10,000 confirmed cases of swine flu worldwide and about 100 deaths it has about a 1% mortality rate. As I understand it much of the concern is that it could mutate into an easier spreading or even more potent strain. So, if I had no access to antiviral drugs or immunisation would taking my chances and catching the current form of the virus, allowing my body to recognise it, form antibodies and (hopefully ) overcome it, confer on me any resistance to a possible more potent future strain, assuming the new strain is not too different from the current ones? When confronted by a new strain of the virus would my existing antibodies then say "Ah, we've seen something like this before and we know just where to hit it!" (antibodies speaking English and all)? Any clarifications appreciated Whether your deliberate infection would help against a later infection is a matter of speculation. The most important antigens in flu are hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. These each come in different forms (and suptypes), and are the reason you see flu varieties referred to as, e.g., H5N1 (for hemagglutinin type 5, neuraminidase type 1). The H is what the virus uses to bind to the cell surface, while the N is used to escape from the cell after replication. Because these proteins are prominent on the outside of the viral particle ("virion"), these are the proteins that your immune system tends to recognize and target. If the current swine flu mutates to become more deadly or more transmissible, there is a good chance that the mutation(s) would happen in the H and/or N antigens. If so, it could be that your antibodies against the current flu would not be effective against the mutated flu. So, in a nutshell, would you take a 1 in a 100 chance of death now, for the possibility that the future flu will be worse, but still recognizable? Remember, you're also gambling that the virus will get worse, and not better: if it turned into a relatively mild flu, you'd be pretty silly to have risked your life to avoid it. I don't think you come out ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technetium Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 Thanks, GDG for a balanced, informative and objective explanation that leaves me earger to learn more. Most appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDG Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Any time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Just a little update, the WHO declared it a pandemic now (level 6). We got global spread. Good thing that it ain't that harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flux Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Just a little update, the WHO declared it a pandemic now (level 6). We got global spread. Good thing that it ain't that harmful. Ain't that harmful... yet. About 2 years ago, I told a friend that one way to get the entire population chipped would be to spread a fabricated virus, then force the population to get a shot. I can't help myself than to think this is going to be their chance to get us chipped. I, for one, will not get vaccinated. I'm ready to fight and die for it. I'm glad I bought N95 masks about a month ago, just in case. It was a small investment. Here is a website with some good info: http://www.mouthmask.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UC Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Ain't that harmful... yet. About 2 years ago, I told a friend that one way to get the entire population chipped would be to spread a fabricated virus, then force the population to get a shot. I can't help myself than to think this is going to be their chance to get us chipped. I, for one, will not get vaccinated. I'm ready to fight and die for it. I'm glad I bought N95 masks about a month ago, just in case. It was a small investment. Here is a website with some good info: http://www.mouthmask.com lollerskates. that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I can't help myself than to think this is going to be their chance to get us chipped. I, for one, will not get vaccinated. I'm ready to fight and die for it. I presume you mean "chipped" as in with little electronic tag things. I should point out that such devices currently require a much larger gauge needle than your ordinary vaccine would, so it's not exactly something you can slip in with an ordinary vaccine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydasaint Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I have heard about the possibility of 65000 deaths in the UK alone as a consequence of re-infection in the winter with the H1N1 strain of the flu virus. The devastating symptoms of the 'strong' form of the flu scare the hell out of me to be honest. Cutting-edge research by groups in America and Holland published in the past two weeks in key scientific journals such as Science and Nature shows that the swine flu virus is more virulent in a variety of experimental animal models than the viruses that have been circulating among humans in recent years. The virus appears to penetrate deeper into the lungs of the infected animals and, at very high doses, this leads to death. Pneumonia and respiratory failure are hallmarks of swine origin H1N1 infections in countries such as Mexico and the US, which have seen many more cases than we have in Britain. http://m.telegraph.co.uk/article/5828423/ However, do we all walk around with face masks on? Or do we use Tamiflu. A quick search of the contra-indications of oseltamivir seem to leave me with the thought that I may have to just take my chances... Adverse effectsCommon adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with oseltamivir therapy (occurring in over 1% of clinical trial participants) include: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache. Rare ADRs include: hepatitis and elevated liver enzymes, rash, allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.[4][5] Various other ADRs have been reported in postmarketing surveillance including: toxic epidermal necrolysis, cardiac arrhythmia, seizure, confusion, aggravation of diabetes, and haemorrhagic colitis.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Adverse effects always make a drug look really dangerous. i use antihistamines to control my hayfever and the little information sheet list nearly all those symptoms too and a few more. they have never manifested themselves. it can also be argued that clinical trials show up more adverse effects than would normally be seen as they try to test a diverserange of cases with people on other medications and varying states of health etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydasaint Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I agree with you on some of what you have said -i_alien. However, note that some of the contra-indications have been discovered in post marketing stages: Various other ADRs have been reported in postmarketing surveillance including: toxic epidermal necrolysis, cardiac arrhythmia, seizure, confusion, aggravation of diabetes, and haemorrhagic colitis.[4] I take your point that underlying medical conditions have not been mentioned but I still feel a bit wary of the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now