Where did they get the samples of the 1918 influenza strain?

Sue

Sue,

IIRC, they recently came across some laboratory preserved tissue samples taken from infected patients at the time. Then there were some exhumations of patients who died and were buried north of the permafrost line, but I don't know if that came to anything.

Jeff

As a conspiracy theory, it almost sounds like some bio-pharma type company is looking to weaponize the flu -- they just need to manipulate the DNA so that the flu is optimized for the existing vectors. The HPAI (H5N1 bird flu) hasn't figured out how to reliably jump species so the folks who make money with vaccines need to help it along. . . so they can sell more vaccine. What better way than to find out what mother nature did in 1918 and just do it again. There's another one for the tin-foil hat crowd.

Yep! But, actually, the vaccine business isn't that profitable, even after they were essentially granted blanket civil immunity in the U.S.

Jeff

It was a combination of sources. American Jefferey Taubenberger developed the genetic sequencing technique to figure out the genetic sequence of the Spanish Flu first from preserved samples from the US Armed Forces Pathology Institute. But he wasn't able to figure out the whole sequence just from those samples. It took the exhumation of a preserved from the Alaska permafrost to figure out the rest of it. Then he published the entire genome as well as how to recreate the virus so even YOU can call my 1-800 number and order your own Spanish Flu Chia pet. Call now!

Genetic splicing and modification seems like the poster child for the law of unintended consequence. The one good thing to come out of Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park" books was a hard look at what can happen, albeit, presented in a overly dramatic scenario. The bit where Jeff Goldblum's character makes his speech about doing the science because we can rather than asking if we should is priceless.

JohnE

I see a Bond villan in all this somewhere ... SPECTRE!!





SPECTRE = Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion

That may be truer than you realize.

President-elect PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. has chosen Tom Vilsack, a strong bio-tech proponent who supports genetically engineered crops, cloned animals, etc., to run the Department of Agriculture. Monsanto's boy in government -- whooppee.

Sue

I'm more worried about the fact that these crops don't reproduce naturally, and monoculture replacing crop biodiversity. Both create a potential for sudden, unanticipated and widespread food production shortfalls.

Jeff

Genetically modified crops are not modified for better performance in a particular climate. They are modified for pesticides. Monsanto makes 'Round Up Ready' seeds which are seeds that grow into plants immune to Round Up. This allows the use of the plant killer on the crops without harming the crop. In other cases plants are modified to produce the pesticides internally so insect pests die if they eat them. I do not know where you got the idea GM crops are modified to grow better in specific climates.




Unfortunately, we don't have the choice anymore for many crops. The problem is that the genes in GM crops cross with other crops and the resulting seed is GM. It is very difficult to keep non GM crops pure these days due to cross pollination. To add insult to injury Monsanto has sued small farmers who saved their seed after it was cross pollinated and then grew it. They sued because the small farmer didn't pay Monsanto for licensing the gene. This after Monsanto seed cross pollinated the farmer's crops which is not supposed to happen.


There is only one reason for GM crops and that is to make more money for Monsanto, it is not something that increases yields or has any other benefit despite Monsanto's claims. Many nations ban them outright because they understand once the genes get into the plant population via cross pollination there is no going back.