Fwd: Re: [FoRK] avian flu/home grown/PastFutureTense/retraction

Tracie K Meyer con10gent_sentience
Fri Oct 14 08:12:31 PDT 2005


that's really, truly okay stephen.
i actually got you confused on your initial reply with some other guy
who gave me a hard time and should of thru your` and andy's (?)
discussion which occurred while i was unglued from my computer screen
for a some time over the last 24 hours anyways.

now, it isn't necessary to worry about immunity anyways...do what i'm
going to do! get yourself a SELF-QUARANTINE HOUSE!

safe from ANYTHING should you remain in the states; which quite likely
we all will.
http://www.ultimatesecurehome.com/secure_home.htm
|*_*|

all the best,
/tkm
we can get back to the flu discussion and skip the levity after this
one....

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:42:31 -0400, "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>
said:
> That's ok, although I couldn't tell when and if you were seriously 
> rebuting my arguments.  (Rebuting my spelling is easy these days.  Heck, 
> I'm not even sure if it's spelled "rebuting" and it's been too long a 
> week to check.)
> 
> To answer the immunity comment: I was referring to "natural immunity", 
> i.e. the capability of someone to A) avoid noticable infection and/or B) 
> to survive infection either because their immune system reacts quickly 
> enough or they just don't have the protein structure for a particular 
> virus to bind to.  Those kinds of immunity ARE inherited, with lots of 
> random exchanges and "mutations", and are said to be the whole point of 
> dual-sex reproduction.
> 
> The presence of particular antibodies is not passed on (except some 
> mother->child), but the ability to make those antibodies to a particular 
> response definitely is inheritable most of the time.
> 
> sdw
> 
> Tracie K Meyer wrote:
> 
> >MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES GO TO STEPHEN. THIS IS INTENDED AS JUST A JOKE
> >POST AND WAS NOT TO BE SENT TO FORK LIST.
> >
> >Tracie K Meyer
> >
> >On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:53:47 -0700, "Tracie K Meyer"
> ><con10gent_sentience at inoutbox.com> said:
> >  
> >
> >>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:34:04 -0400, "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>
> >>said:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>"People born after 1918 have little or no immunity."  How would they 
> >>>know that?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>[...]"born after"[...]
> >>AFTER
> >>Adverb:
> >>1.Happening at a time subsequent to a reference time
> >>   "two hours after that"
> >>2.Behind or in the rear
> >>   "and Jill came tumbling after"
> >>
> >>"How would they know that?"
> >>they weren't dead; they were just born after the pandemic killed forty
> >>million. immunity is not 'inherited', you bloody idiot.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Does that make sense?"
> >>
> >>no; but i just did just like new scientist did and the rest of the
> >>articles i send in did.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Wouldn't it be most likely that people (and their children) with least 
> >>>immunity would have been the ones mostly likely to be among the 40M
> >>>victims?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>"with least"
> >>...with THE least...[expository style, please]
> >>
> >>"Wouldn't it be most likely that people (and their children) with least 
> >>immunity would have been the ones mostly likely to be among the 40M
> >>victims?"
> >>
> >>irrelvant to illogical expository style. however, forget the 'most
> >>likely(s'). those with the "least immunity" (ahem) millions and millions
> >>and millions ........................................died, that was not
> >>the issue. the issue was READ THE ARTICLE. 
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>If a disease kills most of those susceptable, the children from that 
> >>>point on have to be more likely to survive, right?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>"susceptable" spelling
> >>susceptible
> >>Adjective
> >>1.(often followed by 'of' or 'to') yielding readily to or capable of
> >>  "susceptible to colds"; "susceptible of proof"
> >>2.Easily impressed emotionally
> >>
> >>
> >>"If a disease kills most of those susceptable, the children from that 
> >>point on have to be more likely to survive, right?"
> >>
> >>only if they had survived H5N1 somehow, and only for that one lifetime,
> >>and only if they never contracted it again, and only if they did
> >>contract it again it it were via the same vector(s) route, and only if
> >>the surface proteins had not rearranged, and only if the gene sequencing
> >>had not rearranged, and only if THEY SURVIVED THAT. oh ja, you qualified
> >>with [...]"more likely to survive" well fuck it; i answered it.
> >>
> >>next time, best pick on someone your own IQ
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>sdw
> >>>
> >>>Tracie K Meyer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Experts fear escape of 1918 flu from lab
> >>>>
> >>>>New Scientist | October 21 2004
> >>>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>
> >>>>The latest work was done by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of
> >>>>Wisconsin at Madison. His team showed that adding the 1918 gene for the
> >>>>surface protein haemagglutinin to modern viruses made them far deadlier
> >>>>to mice. The researchers also found that people born after 1918 have
> >>>>little or no immunity.
> >>>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>-- 
> >>http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
> >>                          unladen european swallow
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
> Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
> 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again



More information about the FoRK mailing list