Posted by Jim Janney on January 29, 2010, 12:59 pm
> Jim Janney wrote
>>> Jim Janney wrote
>>>>>> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to
>>>>>> its alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
>>>>>> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
>>>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>>> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking
>>>>>> treatment. If you think you might have swine flu, do see a
>>>>>> doctor. I put that off and ended up with pneumonia.
>>>>> Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or
indluenza
>>>>> as the Arm & Hammer Company claimed it would back in 1925.
>>>> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take
chances with it.
>>> It is in fact a pretty minor variant of flu.
>> My experience of it was much different, and worse, than other flus.
> And statistically that doesnt happen with many at all who get it.
> Yes, like with any flu, it does kill some people, but the fatality rate is
very low.
>>>> In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
>>>> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
>>> That utterly mangles the real story.
>> Could be. Feel free to expand on that.
> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the
> vastly more virulent second phase, even tho they had very stong immune systems.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
That makes sense. Thank you.
--
Jim Janney
Posted by Les Cargill on January 29, 2010, 8:37 pm
Rod Speed wrote:
> Jim Janney wrote
<snip>
>
> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the
> vastly more virulent second phase, even tho they had very stong immune systems.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>
Something like that. The epidemiology of the1918 flu is
extremely complex. They traced it back to one training
barracks in ... France, I think. Taples? Factors for development
and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but
it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdR22069
The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" -
a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to secondary
pneumonia.
--
Les Cargill
Posted by Rod Speed on January 29, 2010, 10:48 pm
Les Cargill wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jim Janney wrote
>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in
the vastly more virulent second phase,
>> even tho they had very stong immune systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
> Something like that.
Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to
one training barracks in ... France, I
> think. Taples? Factors for development
> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one
smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdR22069
> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish
coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
> secondary pneumonia.
And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
Posted by Les Cargill on January 29, 2010, 11:04 pm
Rod Speed wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Jim Janney wrote
>
>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in
the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>> Something like that.
>
> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
>
I can only work from memory, but there was this bizarre logistical
twist to *this flu*. Just the right number of people were under
just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to
one training barracks in ... France, I
>> think. Taples?
Etaples.
>> Factors for development
>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>
> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
>
I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not
have a story on this flu. They have clues, but no real story.
Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this
mother had a better chance of killing you than all other
things that happened besides.
Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu
virus is, the hypothesis that caught my eye is that external
conditions made it so. The same virus release in Arizona would
not have worked.
DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a
minefield.
>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one
smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>
> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
> form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
>
But then it died down. There were months where no infections were
reported. That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples
strain, just that we don't have any information to show a linkage.
And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many
months means we simply do not know.
SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the
Etaples strain was equal to the Kansas strain. We don't know.
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdR22069
>
>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish
coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>> secondary pneumonia.
>
> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
>
>
Was it? The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction?
Positive feedback loop?
Explain yourself.
--
Les Cargill
Posted by Rod Speed on January 30, 2010, 12:56 am
Les Cargill wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jim Janney wrote
>>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in
the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>>> Something like that.
>> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
>> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
>> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
>> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
>> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
>> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> I can only work from memory,
You dont have to use memory, you can look at the facts.
> but there was this bizarre logistical twist to *this flu*.
Nope.
> Just the right number of people were under
> just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
That is just plain wrong. That flu killed a huge percentage of the
population in even very isolated pacific islands and the arctic,
and the reason it did that was because the once it mutated to
the second phase, it produced that gross over reaction in the
immune system of healthy and fit individuals and that is what
killed them. Other flus dont work like that and that didnt
happen in the first phase of that particular flu either.
>>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced
>>> it back to one training barracks in ... France, I think. Taples?
> Etaples.
That phase was just another flu.
>>> Factors for development
>>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
>> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
>> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not have a
story on this flu. They have clues, but no
> real story.
They do have the real story on why it was so lethal to fit and healthy people.
> Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this mother had a better
chance of killing you than all other
> things that happened besides.
Yes, it killed a hell of a lot more people than any other infectious disease has
ever done.
And killed a hell of a lot more people that ALL of those killed by WW1 too.
> Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
> frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu virus is, the
hypothesis that caught my eye is that
> external conditions made it so.
No they didnt. If it had been that, it wouldnt have been so utterly widespread.
> The same virus release in Arizona would not have worked.
Wrong again.
> DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a minefield.
Its got nothing to do with DNA except in the sense that the virus mutated between
the first and second phase into a much more lethal strain in phase two.
>>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one
smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
form that killed vast numbers of people
>> because of that immune system effect.
> But then it died down. There were months where no infections were reported.
That was BEFORE it mutated into the vastly more lethal
and virulent form that produced the second phase.
> That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples strain, just that we
don't have any information to show a
> linkage.
Yes we do, its completely trivial to check the DNA of the two strains.
> And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many months
means we simply do not know.
That is just plain wrong. Its well known that it mutated between the first
and second phases and that is completely trivial to prove using the DNA.
> SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the Etaples strain
was equal to the Kansas strain.
Yes there is, the DNA of the two strains.
> We don't know.
Yes we do. Read the wikipedia article.
>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdR22069
>>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish
coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>>> secondary pneumonia.
>> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
> Was it?
Yep.
> The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction? Positive
feedback loop?
Nope, the gross over reaction of the immune system in healthy and fit individuals
was what killed those that the much more virulent and fatal second strain killed
and is why it mostly killed the young fit and healthy, because their immune
system
was much more effective than those of say the middle aged and elderly etc.
> Explain yourself.
The wikipedia article spells it out pretty clearly.
XML site map
>>> Jim Janney wrote
>>>>>> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to
>>>>>> its alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
>>>>>> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
>>>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>>> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking
>>>>>> treatment. If you think you might have swine flu, do see a
>>>>>> doctor. I put that off and ended up with pneumonia.
>>>>> Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or