Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome...

[Sea Skimmer]

Well no amount of funky rifles will stop SARS unless they fire virus sized bullets or you're trying to contain people.

16/50 Mk7 battleship rifle firing the S-23 nuclear shells would be quite effective at defeating viruses by vaporizing them

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well no amount of funky rifles will stop SARS unless they fire virus sized bullets or you're trying to contain people.

16/50 Mk7 battleship rifle firing the S-23 nuclear shells would be quite effective at defeating viruses by vaporizing them

Hmm, I like your style.

Now we just need to convince the WHO to use these on China as a remedy to their problems there, side effects may be partial vapourisation of the population.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Th company I am temping for just axed all travel to Asia and Toronto. I think we have had a few cases here in the Bay Area. SFO gets a scare every few days when some passenger from Asia sneezes.

Problem with SARS is it seems have gotten its start in China where they are not going to upfront and will only make matters worse.

[Sea Skimmer]

Problem with SARS is it seems have gotten its start in China where they are not going to upfront and will only make matters worse.

Yeah, problem is the government covered it up until it was too well established to be contained within the nation. Now they have cases in every province and its spreading across the globe.

One something reaches the international airline network, little can stop it other then shutting down that network. Problem is its already reached the network and spread to other areas via it so even that won't do too much good.

[PainRack]

...AKA SARS, is currently a major topic in my country. Okay, so it's been a major topic for a couple of months already, but I only realized how desperate the government was to contain it recently.

For example, all schoolchildren from age 9 and above will have their own thermometers with which to record their own temperatures (a fever of 38 degrees and above is a potential symptom of SARS). They are advised to keep their own log books to monitor any dangerous trends.

The same measures apply to military personnel, but it's more troublesome for us. While I can't speak for the other units, I know that over here in the School of Military Medicine, we are getting our own thermometers as well, we have to take our temperatures twice a day, and on top of that, we have to practically disinfect the premises everywhere we go. After our lectures, we have to spray disinfectant on the chairs. Mopping the floors with chlorine bleach is mandatory, as is flushing the entire floor out once a week. Hell, we even have to wear latex gloves during our outdoor lessons in the training sheds, and before we leave, we have to disinfect the place as well!

Some wits in my platoon suggested that we wear chemical suits (incidentally, the MRF - Medical Response Force - is based in our camp as well; they decontaminate and treat casualties of chemical and biological incidents) and set up casualty decontamination stations complete with Fuller's Earth and DKP 1.

Apparently, our sergeant didn't consider that idea too far-fetched.

I just wanted to mention this, because I heard a hospital in Tornto had to close down because of SARS, and if I'm not wrong, Darth Wong lives in Toronto. Just wanted to know how all of this was affecting you guys.

I'm just wondering between the difference between Mainland and Tekong.I mean,if Tekong was to effect the guidelines as strictly as on mainland,then,most of the companies would be running at a quarter strength.

[PainRack]

Problem with SARS is it seems have gotten its start in China where they are not going to upfront and will only make matters worse.

Yeah, problem is the government covered it up until it was too well established to be contained within the nation. Now they have cases in every province and its spreading across the globe.

One something reaches the international airline network, little can stop it other then shutting down that network. Problem is its already reached the network and spread to other areas via it so even that won't do too much good.

Actually,the problem isn't the cover-up.The problem was that it took 3 months for China to realise there was a problem,and another month to start to cover up,by then the problem has already erupted in Hong Kong,one of the world most densely populated territories.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I'm beginning to feel just as wary towards SARS 'science' as I have become towards AIDS 'science'.

Several articles came up recently in which scientists debunked the idea of coronavirus being the cause of SARS, after they found that the virus could not be found in a significant portion of the supposed SARS cases.

http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art3477web.pdf

We analysed case notes and microbiological findings for 50
patients with SARS, representing more than five separate
epidemiologically linked transmission clusters. We defined the
clinical presentation and risk factors associated with severe disease
and investigated the causal agents by chest radiography and
laboratory testing of nasopharyngeal aspirates and sera samples. We
compared the laboratory findings with those submitted for
microbiological investigation of other diseases from patients whose
identity was masked.

Findings: Patients' age ranged from 23 to 74 years. Fever, chills,
myalgia, and cough were the most frequent complaints. When compared
with chest radiographic changes, respiratory symptoms and
auscultatory findings were disproportionally mild. Patients who were
household contacts of other infected people and had older age, lympho
penia, and liver dysfunction were associated with severe disease. A
virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae was isolated from two
patients. By use of serological and reverse-transcriptase PCR
specific for this virus, 45 of 50 patients with SARS, but no
controls, had evidence of infection with this virus.

Take note of the italic portion. Only two out of 50 patients?!? Common sense tells us that if a virus is the cause of a disease, it has to be present in sufficient titers to cause it! And using PCR is already cheating! It means the virus is not in any appreciable quantity in the first place!

This link disputes the evidence for the coronavirus.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04

From this, I have two possible reasons for the results. One, all the SARS cases are indeed really SARS cases, and that the coronavirus is neither a neccessary nor sufficient causal agent for the disease. In other words, better luck and better science next time when finding a virus.

Two, not all the SARS cases are indeed SARS cases. Some of them might be wrongly classified pneumonia/influenza/other-disease cases. Have they carried out viral checks for the pneumonia and flu virus on all the SARS patients? So the coronavirus is still a suspect here for SARS and SARS only.

What exactly are the symptoms that classify a patient as being afflicted with SARS? I don't mean the vaguely worded WHO or CDC definitions with high fever and the like. I prefer the local definition which uses a lung X-ray to confirm the disease. According to my sister, the lungs become 'fibrous' very quickly, much quicker than in pneumonia cases, IIRC.

She also told me that they can currently observe two types of SARS patients. One type with the aforementioned lung problem, the other with the usual rigmarole we hear on the media. Obviously, the easiest(and observed) explanation is that one leads to the other. But how many of those who never develop the second 'fibrous lung' stage truly have 'SARS'? What is it that leads a stage 1 patient to the second stage? Another virus? Rapid immune system recovery?

Until we nail down what SARS is exactly, what its symptoms are in the first place, we'll just be running around like headless chickens.

It's very easy to get inflated figures with the WHO and CDC definitions. Do you find them vague? I sure do.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet.htm

And I'm sure there'll be a significant number of pneumonia and influenza cases wrongly classified as SARS. And that leads us to a real problem when trying to determine the etiology of the disease, because we'll be ruling out the real causes for SARS because they can't be found in pneumonia and influenza 'SARS' cases!

Beware of bad science here. Take every report, every factoid, even what I have said here, with a hefty pinch of salt.

The Nice Guy

[Vympel]

Damn you nitpickers with your medical dictionaries and your new fangled ways of taking the wind outta my sails!

Objective Force Personal Defeat Munition Dispenser System

Hey, that's not nearly as bad as OICW's other name:

SABR

Selectable Assault Battle Rifle.

[Lagmonster]

I'm beginning to feel just as wary towards SARS 'science' as I have become towards AIDS 'science'.

Several articles came up recently in which scientists debunked the idea of coronavirus being the cause of SARS, after they found that the virus could not be found in a significant portion of the supposed SARS cases.

Oh, fuck, not you AGAIN. Look, kid, while I'll admit that the disease is very new and we don't know everything about it, picking up on the fringe and doubters and lauding them as heroes against the overwhelming popular scientific conspiracy to carelessly misinterpret research is outright fucking stupid. Especially if you start crowing again about how we're wasting time and money and lives investigating supposedly 'false' avenues of research in some sort of mad scientist's craze to be the first one on the block with a theory, or suggesting that scientists have "tossed out" all our current working theories, or saying that we're "not identifying the symptoms of the right disease", or saying that we should blatantly abandon current and working avenues of research because they haven't produced absolute results to the satisfaction of laypeople like you yet.

Did you read the research paper you linked to? Or the articles? The research paper doesn't even try to name the coronavirus as the sole factor:

"We have provided evidence that a virus in the coronavirus family is the causal agent of SARS. However it remains possible that other viruses act as opportunistic secondary invaders to increase the disease progression, a hypothesis that needs to be investigated further."

The article quoting doctor Frank Plummer specifically states that he suspects that the coronavirus couldn't do it by *itself*, but doesn't debate the fact that it is a component of the disease. Another article on the site supports that statement, offering three possible theories, all of which are viral in nature. Klaus Stöhr, a WHO virologist working on the outbreak, said "The corona virus lives in immune cells… So it might destroy, or at least diminish, the immunity in the patient so that the paramyxovirus has practically an open door to go in and to sicken the patient beyond what this virus would be able to do normally."

So, fine. There might be another cause, another virus, another something. But no one in the scientific community is ignoring avenues of research in favour of a mainstanding theory, or suppressing avenues of research that contradict some pet theory of theirs, get it?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought we'd already gone through this? The coronavirus is the most common but there are also samples from patients that have a paramyxovirus as the sole cause or as a co-infectant along with the coronavirus.

The most likely culprit is the coronavirus due to the symptons I have read of and witnessed so far, that's why I originally thought it was Influenza H5N1 becoming more common, but SARS appeared at the same time as that strain of Flu and Avian Flu which is in Europe and Asia now killing poultry off. If the two exchange genetic material then we will be in a world or hurt, not like we aren't already really.

I am amazed at how little the US media seems to report on it from what I have seen, instead we're still going on about Iraq WMDs that are proverbial ghosts compared to SARS. Guess they need more cases to be worried and I have no doubt that will happen.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Oh, fuck, not you AGAIN. Look, kid, while I'll admit that the disease is very new and we don't know everything about it, picking up on the fringe and doubters and lauding them as heroes against the overwhelming popular scientific conspiracy to carelessly misinterpret research is outright fucking stupid.

Lauding them as heroes? Now where did I do that, hmmm? So so what if I hail them as heroes? Does it have anything on the matter at hand? Abusive ad hominem.

Especially if you start crowing again about how we're wasting time and money and lives investigating supposedly 'false' avenues of research in some sort of mad scientist's craze to be the first one on the block with a theory, or suggesting that scientists have "tossed out" all our current working theories, or saying that we're "not identifying the symptoms of the right disease", or saying that we should blatantly abandon current and working avenues of research because they haven't produced absolute results to the satisfaction of laypeople like you yet.

No, I'm cautioning people against believing anything too early, especially with all the media and government pressure . Ever heard of something called proof? I'm advocating that a clearer stance be taken now before the situation deteriorates. And a lot of what we hear now is undisputably 'bad science'. And if there's anything I can't stand, it's that. Do you deny that the initial reports of the coronavirus as a/the casual agent are dubious?

Did you read the research paper you linked to? Or the articles? The research paper doesn't even try to name the coronavirus as the sole factor:
"We have provided evidence that a virus in the coronavirus family is the causal agent of SARS. However it remains possible that other viruses act as opportunistic secondary invaders to increase the disease progression, a hypothesis that needs to be investigated further."

Read it carefully. When they say "a virus in the coronavirus family is the causal agent of SARS", see the word 'the'. Now think for a moment. What's the difference between saying 'the' or 'a'? The rest of the sentence is nonsence as far as SARS is concerned. Secondary infections? HAH! Anything to do with SARS? No.

The article quoting doctor Frank Plummer specifically states that he suspects that the coronavirus couldn't do it by *itself*, but doesn't debate the fact that it is a component of the disease. Another article on the site supports that statement, offering three possible theories, all of which are viral in nature. Klaus Stöhr, a WHO virologist working on the outbreak, said "The corona virus lives in immune cells… So it might destroy, or at least diminish, the immunity in the patient so that the paramyxovirus has practically an open door to go in and to sicken the patient beyond what this virus would be able to do normally."

Selective reading here I see? You seem to have missed this little portion. Nice job on reading the articles, since I thought you would have noticed this part.

But according to Plummer "The proportion of our samples [from Canadian SARS patients] that show the coronavirus is going down." He said earlier this week that about 60% were showing the virus by PCR test; now it's only 50%.

So how can coronavirus be a/the cause? Unless, of course, you agree with me that not all the cases tested are true SARS. It's very possible that only the 50% positive tested patients(those with coronavirus) have SARS. Perhaps they should work from that 50% instead and look for points of congruence.

So, fine. There might be another cause, another virus, another something. But no one in the scientific community is ignoring avenues of research in favour of a mainstanding theory, or suppressing avenues of research that contradict some pet theory of theirs, get it?

And I fear that we might not be able to find this 'cause' if we cannot even agree on what SARS exactly is! The current definition is far too vague, and might have contributed to the coronavirus causal agent problem. We need a common starting point, an identified set of syndromes as base criteria, but we don't even have that yet!

So there, I've said my piece for the time being.

The Nice Guy

[The_Nice_Guy]

I thought we'd already gone through this? The coronavirus is the most common but there are also samples from patients that have a paramyxovirus as the sole cause or as a co-infectant along with the coronavirus.

I'm beginning to think we might have mixed up the various SARS cases. Or even worse...

Is it possible that only coronavirus alone, paramyxovirus alone, or the two as co-agents, can result in the rapid lung deterioration that we observe in SARS? Because well, if the unlikely happens and it turns out there are multiple sole viral causes for the exact same symptoms for SARS, then we're well and truly fucked for once by nature. Independent viral causes of the same disease. Who would've thunk it?

The most likely culprit is the coronavirus due to the symptons I have read of and witnessed so far, that's why I originally thought it was Influenza H5N1 becoming more common, but SARS appeared at the same time as that strain of Flu and Avian Flu which is in Europe and Asia now killing poultry off. If the two exchange genetic material then we will be in a world or hurt, not like we aren't already really.

I think claiming coronavirus as the most likely culprit might still be a bit premature. There's the chance, as I've said above, that it might account for 50%(or more) cases of SARS, with the rest due to paramyxovirus, or the two acting in conjunction. There's also the possibility that the two viruses have exchanged genetic material which might account for why they can cause the same symptoms. I don't find this likely, though a genetic survey would be the best way to confirm this.

I am amazed at how little the US media seems to report on it from what I have seen, instead we're still going on about Iraq WMDs that are proverbial ghosts compared to SARS. Guess they need more cases to be worried and I have no doubt that will happen.

Quarantine controls are pretty tight now in Asia. Furthermore, I imagine it's a simple matter for US Homeland Security to turn just the tiniest of attention from terrorists towards travellers from Asia to ensure that the disease doesn't permeate their borders. Of course, there's always the dormancy period...

The Nice Guy

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm beginning to think we might have mixed up the various SARS cases. Or even worse...

It's possible, there have been so many supposed cases and the symptoms are hardly rare.

Is it possible that only coronavirus alone, paramyxovirus alone, or the two as co-agents, can result in the rapid lung deterioration that we observe in SARS? Because well, if the unlikely happens and it turns out there are multiple sole viral causes for the exact same symptoms for SARS, then we're well and truly fucked for once by nature. Independent viral causes of the same disease. Who would've thunk it?

They believe so, they being mainly the CDC, PHLS and WHO along with universities in HK and China. Several viri have been isolated in random cases of the SARS epidemic, but they all seem to cause the same symptoms. It's not impossible, but it's looking that we may have another co-infectious agent working here. The thing is, the coronavirus here also caused pneumonia in our bovine friends when working with a type of bacteria which the name escapes me now. But a couple of years ago during the last major outbreak of bovine pneumonia they found only virus present, no sign of the bacteria assisting at all.

I think claiming coronavirus as the most likely culprit might still be a bit premature. There's the chance, as I've said above, that it might account for 50%(or more) cases of SARS, with the rest due to paramyxovirus, or the two acting in conjunction. There's also the possibility that the two viruses have exchanged genetic material which might account for why they can cause the same symptoms. I don't find this likely, though a genetic survey would be the best way to confirm this.

An exchange of genetic material is already likely as the virus crossed the species barrier so readily and Avian Flu is common in that region.

Quarantine controls are pretty tight now in Asia. Furthermore, I imagine it's a simple matter for US Homeland Security to turn just the tiniest of attention from terrorists towards travellers from Asia to ensure that the disease doesn't permeate their borders. Of course, there's always the dormancy period...

The Nice Guy

Containing this thing is a stone cold bitch of a problem, despite the reports of minor risk for spreading the virus, it seems to spread like wildfire and our quarantines so far are like sieves. Of course, had the WHO got to it earlier this may have been stopped whilst still in Guangdong.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Containing this thing is a stone cold bitch of a problem, despite the reports of minor risk for spreading the virus, it seems to spread like wildfire and our quarantines so far are like sieves. Of course, had the WHO got to it earlier this may have been stopped whilst still in Guangdong.

We 're doing quite well in Singapore. There's been a significant drop off in the number of new cases in the past few days.

If not for the foreigners coming in, there's every chance we'll have SARS licked by June.

The Nice Guy

[Lagmonster]

Lauding them as heroes? Now where did I do that, hmmm? So so what if I hail them as heroes? Does it have anything on the matter at hand? Abusive ad hominem.

I'm referring to your stint on the AIDS issue. Frankly, you have yet to redeem yourself from that conspiracy-theory mess.

No, I'm cautioning people against believing anything too early, especially with all the media and government pressure . Ever heard of something called proof? I'm advocating that a clearer stance be taken now before the situation deteriorates. And a lot of what we hear now is undisputably 'bad science'. And if there's anything I can't stand, it's that. Do you deny that the initial reports of the coronavirus as a/the casual agent are dubious?

Nowhere are researchers considered 'bad scientists'. They are formulating theories from the evidence they have, which is what scientists are supposed to do. Here's a good question for you: Where is the submitted criticism of the research performed to date? The peer review that says that those who name the coronavirus as suspect are full of shit? Shouldn't such detailed destructions of the existing research be available?

Read it carefully. When they say "a virus in the coronavirus family is the causal agent of SARS", see the word 'the'. Now think for a moment. What's the difference between saying 'the' or 'a'? The rest of the sentence is nonsence as far as SARS is concerned. Secondary infections? HAH! Anything to do with SARS? No.

So, you're going to hold the research as irrelevant and toss an entire avenue of research and a valid theory to the winds because you don't trust their sentence structure? And as for the rest...many diseases hinge not on one specific cause, but on a compound of causes that, while normally not dangerous by itself, PIGGYBACKS on another disease that has weakened your body's ability to fight or endure it. Secondary infections have A LOT to do with SARS. We had this same problem when you were talking about AIDS. People don't die from AIDS. They die from SECONDARY INFECTIONS that they can't fight BECAUSE of AIDS.

Here's an idea: Why don't you show how the RESEARCH was flawed, or that the CONCLUSIONS do not follow from the results.

Selective reading here I see? You seem to have missed this little portion. Nice job on reading the articles, since I thought you would have noticed this part.

But according to Plummer "The proportion of our samples [from Canadian SARS patients] that show the coronavirus is going down." He said earlier this week that about 60% were showing the virus by PCR test; now it's only 50%.

So how can coronavirus be a/the cause? Unless, of course, you agree with me that not all the cases tested are true SARS. It's very possible that only the 50% positive tested patients(those with coronavirus) have SARS. Perhaps they should work from that 50% instead and look for points of congruence.

I was quoting the doctor's conclusion, whereas YOU are half-quoting his findings. Read the NEXT paragraph, where he CLARIFIES the statement you chose to isolate and derive conclusions from without any OTHER evidence:

"Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose," said Plummer "but many of the Toronto cases are epidemiologically linked, and we are finding some of the best-characterized cases are negative. So it's puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small – only detectable by very sensitive PCR."

After mentioning that the proportion has gone down, he helpfully tells us that a) finding the damn thing in the first place is HARD, and b) they're having trouble locking down the definition of SARS. Which would fit into your "All cases tested may not be true SARS" theory, which would probably the only reasonable thing you've said, if not for the fact that we INCLUDE those SARS-like patients because to exclude them at our current level of knowledge would be that bad science you hate - an important connection could exist.

And I fear that we might not be able to find this 'cause' if we cannot even agree on what SARS exactly is! The current definition is far too vague, and might have contributed to the coronavirus causal agent problem. We need a common starting point, an identified set of syndromes as base criteria, but we don't even have that yet!

All patients with similar symptoms are being investigated, because that is how epidemiological studies work. I can't tell you more, because it's not my field. Besides, they know enough to start attacking a viral cause. From the research paper: "By use of serological and reverse-transcriptase PCR specific for this virus, 45 of 50 patients with SARS, but no controls, had evidence of infection with this virus."

But don't take it from me. Instead, I encourage you to do the same thing now as I did when we were talking about AIDS: Call up whatever research bodies you wish and ask them to explain why, in your mind, they're butchering the pursuit of research into SARS and participating in media-frenzied 'bad science'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

New Scientist has done some research and found that the mortality rate has risen to 10%, even the WHO has put their rate at 5% up from 3.7% and it could get higher.

[AdmiralKanos]

I'm beginning to feel just as wary towards SARS 'science' as I have become towards AIDS 'science'.

And based on the same bullshit, I see.

Several articles came up recently in which scientists debunked the idea of coronavirus being the cause of SARS, after they found that the virus could not be found in a significant portion of the supposed SARS cases.

Since some of the suspected SARS cases are probably just the flu, this is hardly a shocking newsflash.

Beware of bad science here. Take every report, every factoid, even what I have said here, with a hefty pinch of salt.

Beware of bad logic, which you have demonstrated before with your rants against the AIDS "conspiracy".

[The Yosemite Bear]

Although not confirmed, the very dry Pnumonia/Bronchitus like thing that infected a good deal of the employee population here in Yosemite back in Febuary is now in retrospect becomming suspect of maybe being SARS?

Basically, me an a number of others got paid to take 3 weeks off, and stay away from everyone, while drinking a ton of liquids. My Diabetic reaction was so bad I had to be emergency hidrated.

Still no word on the bloodwork...
I'm feeling fine now.
What's the inubation/active cycle for this bug anyways.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Although not confirmed, the very dry Pnumonia/Bronchitus like thing that infected a good deal of the employee population here in Yosemite back in Febuary is now in retrospect becomming suspect of maybe being SARS?

Basically, me an a number of others got paid to take 3 weeks off, and stay away from everyone, while drinking a ton of liquids. My Diabetic reaction was so bad I had to be emergency hidrated.

Still no word on the bloodwork...
I'm feeling fine now.
What's the inubation/active cycle for this bug anyways.

Ten days. If you're not pushing up daisies by then, then it's a safe bet that you're clear.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Sounds about right, I stayed away from work an extra week to make sure I didn't pass what ever it was on.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I'm referring to your stint on the AIDS issue. Frankly, you have yet to redeem yourself from that conspiracy-theory mess.

I beg to differ. Define AIDS as a set of syndromes first, and then prove to me that HIV has fulfilled Koch's postulates in causing AIDS(CD4 white blood cell depletion). Simple, isn't it? Not done yet. Show me one bloody EM photo of HIV viri isolated by the retroviral method.

Even Admiral Valdemar admits that he can't find any. That seem funny to you?

Stop using circular logic to justify the existence of HIV, because I can tell you it won't wash.

And oh, your circumstantial ad hominem attack is very unbecoming as well.

Nowhere are researchers considered 'bad scientists'. They are formulating theories from the evidence they have, which is what scientists are supposed to do. Here's a good question for you: Where is the submitted criticism of the research performed to date? The peer review that says that those who name the coronavirus as suspect are full of shit? Shouldn't such detailed destructions of the existing research be available?

I never said they were bad researchers, did I? I only said we should be wary of their findings, because they could be wrong. Now, is that so hard to believe? Or do you accept everything that is published? SARS is so new that proper peer reviews of research on the topic have hardly been done. There'll be more of these as the weeks pass.

So, you're going to hold the research as irrelevant and toss an entire avenue of research and a valid theory to the winds because you don't trust their sentence structure? And as for the rest...many diseases hinge not on one specific cause, but on a compound of causes that, while normally not dangerous by itself, PIGGYBACKS on another disease that has weakened your body's ability to fight or endure it. Secondary infections have A LOT to do with SARS. We had this same problem when you were talking about AIDS. People don't die from AIDS. They die from SECONDARY INFECTIONS that they can't fight BECAUSE of AIDS.

Sigh. So now you avoid my point that you misread the article and conveniently missed the use of the word 'the' instead of 'a'. And yes, sentence structure is very important, even in scientific articles. Proper language conveys the correct information. Or do you persist in believing that the researchers had any other meaning other than coronavirus as 'the' cause of SARS? In that case, we can interpret scientific articles in any manner we want!

I've never said people die from AIDS, so stop putting bloody words in my mouth(you seem to do that very often, don't you?)! Yes, yes, we know they die from secondary infections, but what is the EXACT cause for the depletion of white blood cells in the first place?!?

Here's an idea: Why don't you show how the RESEARCH was flawed, or that the CONCLUSIONS do not follow from the results.

I've already done that. I cited the possible reasons for the results obtained, as well as the vagarities currently accepted in defining SARS as the possible flaws in the research. Or were you trying desperately to think of more ways to twist my words?

I was quoting the doctor's conclusion, whereas YOU are half-quoting his findings. Read the NEXT paragraph, where he CLARIFIES the statement you chose to isolate and derive conclusions from without any OTHER evidence:

"Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose," said Plummer "but many of the Toronto cases are epidemiologically linked, and we are finding some of the best-characterized cases are negative. So it's puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small – only detectable by very sensitive PCR."

After mentioning that the proportion has gone down, he helpfully tells us that a) finding the damn thing in the first place is HARD, and b) they're having trouble locking down the definition of SARS. Which would fit into your "All cases tested may not be true SARS" theory, which would probably the only reasonable thing you've said, if not for the fact that we INCLUDE those SARS-like patients because to exclude them at our current level of knowledge would be that bad science you hate - an important connection could exist.

At least we agree on this point.

All patients with similar symptoms are being investigated, because that is how epidemiological studies work. I can't tell you more, because it's not my field. Besides, they know enough to start attacking a viral cause. From the research paper: "By use of serological and reverse-transcriptase PCR specific for this virus, 45 of 50 patients with SARS, but no controls, had evidence of infection with this virus."

Using PCR is already a cop out, because it means that the virus is not present in sufficient titers to cause disease. Epidemiological evidence can work, but I prefer isolation and Koch's postulates, as well a definitive pinning down of the viral etiology.

But don't take it from me. Instead, I encourage you to do the same thing now as I did when we were talking about AIDS: Call up whatever research bodies you wish and ask them to explain why, in your mind, they're butchering the pursuit of research into SARS and participating in media-frenzied 'bad science'.

Oh, I'm planning to after my exams. My sister works at the hospital, and I'm thinking of ways to get reports...

The Nice Guy

[PainRack]

Although not confirmed, the very dry Pnumonia/Bronchitus like thing that infected a good deal of the employee population here in Yosemite back in Febuary is now in retrospect becomming suspect of maybe being SARS?

Basically, me an a number of others got paid to take 3 weeks off, and stay away from everyone, while drinking a ton of liquids. My Diabetic reaction was so bad I had to be emergency hidrated.

Still no word on the bloodwork...
I'm feeling fine now.
What's the inubation/active cycle for this bug anyways.

Ten days. If you're not pushing up daisies by then, then it's a safe bet that you're clear.

There has been isolated cases of contacts requiring 13 days for symptoms to show up.

Or to be more accurate,13 days before the patient decides to check for symptoms.

[The_Nice_Guy]

And based on the same bullshit, I see.

Bullshit, as in the AIDS=HIV theory you accept? I find it ironic that for a website with several sections dedicated to debunking bad science, bad science still seeps in!

Since some of the suspected SARS cases are probably just the flu, this is hardly a shocking newsflash.

Yeah, but many people don't know better. It might seem obvious to you, but not to others.

Beware of bad logic, which you have demonstrated before with your rants against the AIDS "conspiracy".

Oh, and your acceptance of the circular logic used by the CDC/WHO AIDS definition does wonders for your intelligence.

The Wobbly Guy

[The_Nice_Guy]

Sounds about right, I stayed away from work an extra week to make sure I didn't pass what ever it was on.

Anyway, just keep a watch out for high fever. If it happens, go contact your local health authorities. Better be safe than sorry.

The Wobbly Guy

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And based on the same bullshit, I see.

Bullshit, as in the AIDS=HIV theory you accept? I find it ironic that for a website with several sections dedicated to debunking bad science, bad science still seeps in!

Only because it's perfectly good science. Except, of course, HIV sometimes leads to AIDS, not AIDS=HIV.

The ironic thing about your argument this time around is that both might be demolished at the same time.

This may sound like a very grim way of stating something, but AIDS infected populations will not be long of life when SARS gets loose among them - The fatality rate will, naturally, rather increase in people with an auto-immune disorder. If we see tens of millions of people dying in Sub-Saharan Africa in a matter of months, that should settle the question.

Let us hope it doesn't happen, let us surely hope. I almost wish your theories were correct - But the world is rarely that kind. This will be an interesting year, to say the least.

What really should have been done is the immediate and total cessation of all international air travel once this thing was discovered as a potential contagion. Hong Kong should have been immediately sealed off. Once/If that failed, other countries should have started sealing themselves off from air travel and requiring people to travel to them either via land borders, where they could be stopped and quarantined, or by sea, where there's a nice long incubation period.

Of course, Mexico would still be our weak point in the USA, but we could exert economic pressure on the government.

The simple fact is that the majority of the world's commerce still travels by sea and if we were really serious about halting something like this we would have just pulled the plug on air travel to a region to contain it, and if necessary, pulled the plug on air travel in general. Perhaps, however, experience will make us adopt such measures in the future.