W.H.O. N.E.W. ? No P.I.G.S With the F.L.E.W.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

W.H.O. Gives Virus a Name That’s More Scientific and Less Loaded

On Wednesday, the new disease affecting thousands of people in Mexico and more than 100 in the United States and other countries was called swine influenza. By Thursday, the “S word” had been banned: A sentence in a box at the very top of the home page of the World Health Organization said, “From today, W.H.O. will refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A(H1N1).”
At the organization’s news conference in Geneva on Thursday, its deputy director general, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, dutifully referred to the virus as “H1N1,” slipping only once. Just two days earlier, Dr. Fukuda had declared that the new virus was a swine influenza virus and that the organization had no plans to call it anything other than what it was.
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also started to shun the word “swine,” and a hapless reporter who used it during a radio interview was roundly scolded by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The name may have changed, but the virus has not. Scientists who have examined its genetic material say that most of it comes from viruses known to infect pigs. But for various reasons, it seems, that is better left unsaid.
“There were some issues regarding the name ‘swine flu’ that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Thomas W. Skinner, a spokesman for the C.D.C. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones.”
And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.”
Fiona Fleck, a spokeswoman for the World Health Organization, said that the virus was originally called swine flu “because the largest component of this new virus was actually swine flu virus.”
But she added: “It doesn’t affect pigs, as far as we know. It hasn’t been found in pigs. Pigs haven’t transmitted it, as far as we know.” She said that the research had not yet been done to confirm that.
More important, Ms. Fleck said, the name “swine flu” has led some people, mistakenly, to become fearful about eating pork, and that has had an adverse impact on the livelihoods of those in the pork industry.
“So the naming is very fraught, of course,” she said. “It’s fairness, and of course we’re a scientific organization. A(H1N1) is a scientific name. That’s it. But the scientific name is not very user friendly. I think it would help all of us if we could find a name that’s easier to say that’s more popular.”
Maybe, she suggested, there could be a competition, and members of the public could come up with a better name.

Just a couple of {simple} questions:
1. Is there anything that is seen as {wrong} in this?

2. Does anybody not see anything {dangerous} in this ?

3. Does anybody not have a {problem} with this?

4. Is this how {independent} and {unbiased} Science is accomplished?

5. Are there people out there who are actually that {gullible?} Well, evidently there are, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

[gallo]

Just a couple of {simple} questions:

1. Is there anything that is seen as {wrong} in this?

No. Nothing wrong. The virus is still the same virus.

2. Does anybody not see anything {dangerous} in this ?

Nope. Nothing dangerous. Calling it by another name doesn't reduce the danger or make it greater.

3. Does anybody not have a {problem} with this?

No problem.

4. Is this how {independent} and {unbiased} Science is accomplished?

This isn't science. It is a matter of health care. The name was changed because some particularly ignorant people believed that the virus could be transmitted in cooked pork.

5. Are there people out there who are actually that {gullible?} Well, evidently there are, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

What about you?

[Sonart]

.

just a couple of {simple} questions:
1. Is there anything that is seen as {wrong} in this?

LIke what?

2. Does anybody not see anything {dangerous} in this?

Again, like what... that it offends your overly delicate sensibilities rather than millions of other overly delicate sensibilities?

The only danger is taking our eye off the ball by giving a hoot what we call the disease rather than effectively educating the global public about it.

3. Does anybody not have a {problem} with this?

This strain carries a lot of porcine flu genetics. So what? Does what we call it affect in anyway whatsoever how it affects people? Huge numbers of people around the world really, REALLY, REAALLY don't like the idea of a pig virus being in them. So fine... we don't call it a pig virus. The bigger question is why would YOU have a [problem] with this?

4. Is this how {independent} and {unbiased} Science is accomplished?

I seriously doubt that Science gives a flying fart what the media decides to call it. They care about stopping it, and if cultural sensitivity helps accomplish that, then it's all good.

5. Are there people out there who are actually that {gullible?} Well, evidently there are, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

There's all kinds of gullible people. Right here on this board we have people who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, people who believe in the existance of FEMA concentration camps, who believe that crop circles were made by aliens, who believe that evolution is false because it contradicts the Bible, and who believe that global warming is simply a phony concocted scare tactic by a few scientists out to rustle up some grant money.

Go figure.

.

[Aussie]

I'm still wondering why you do {this}?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

No. Nothing wrong. The virus is still the same virus.

Okay, well then let’s {start} by highlighting a couple of verses from the article:

Quote # 1
“There were some issues regarding the name ‘swine flu’ that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Thomas W. Skinner, a spokesman for the C.D.C. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones.”
And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.”

Quote #2
“More important, Ms. Fleck said, the name “swine flu” has led some people, mistakenly, to become fearful about eating pork, and that has had an adverse impact on the livelihoods of those in the pork industry. “

How about now?

Secondly, from some of the {new} responses, it doesn’t appear as if the virus is the {same} virus. Again, let us look at a quote from the article:

Quote #3
“But she added: “It doesn’t affect pigs, as far as we know. It hasn’t been found in pigs. Pigs haven’t transmitted it, as far as we know.” She said that the research had not yet been done to confirm that. “

That doesn't appear to be the same virus. It appears to have changed.

Nope. Nothing dangerous. Calling it by another name doesn't reduce the danger or make it greater.
No problem.

Nothing dangerous? Okay, then why go through all the effort of calling it by another name? If, as you say, “calling it by another name does not {reduce} the danger or make it {greater,”} then why go through all the effort to make sure that it is not called by that name?

This isn't science. It is a matter of health care.

And so this must mean that you are of the mind that [health care] is not a matter of [science?] Why is that? Why is [health care] not a matter of science?

The name was changed because some particularly ignorant people believed that the virus could be transmitted in cooked pork.

And why else? Why else was the name changed? Why don’t we take another look at quotes 1 and 2 from the article:

Quote # 1
“There were some issues regarding the name ‘swine flu’ that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Thomas W. Skinner, a spokesman for the C.D.C. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones.”
And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.”

Quote # 2
“More important, Ms. Fleck said, the name “swine flu” has led some people, mistakenly, to become fearful about eating pork, and that has had an adverse impact on the livelihoods of those in the pork industry. “

Secondly, why is it not possible that the virus can be transmitted through cooked pork?

Thirdly, how do you know that the virus cannot be transmitted through cooked pork?

Fourthly, how do you think that those {particularly ignorant} individuals got the idea that the virus could be transmitted in cooked pork? What could possible give those lowly {unschooled} individuals that idea?

What about you?

Well, it appears that one is not gullible enough to fall for the idea that your science exists as many of you believe it exists. That is to say, that as many of you have declared, your {science} is so that it exists without {outside} controls, manipulations, and doctoring. That it is an {independent} entity that is {immune} to manipulative influence of governments and other {outside} interests. That it requires no faith to follow. This is surely a great example of a science that is said to be {unbiased} and {immune.}

[Aspca4ever]

Lack of an original idea???...Possibly

The unfortunate family that first was diagnosed just happened to work at the 'swine farm'???...Possibly

Because calling it the 'wet-back revenge' would have been in really POOR TASTE!...Possibly

Because it happened in Mexico they couldn't blame the 'ASIAN' countries for this flu...so they zeroed in on the minute detail and forgot that it would/could be something else entirely???...Possibly

That for lack of proof and thorough study, the knee jerk reaction was...blame it on the Mexicans & what they do for a living so that you can just incorporate 2 large issues into one 'flu bug' and get everyone stirred up???...Possibly

And now that the 'MEDIA' has gotten fixated on the 'SWINE' verbiage they'll never be able to change/call it what it really is...H1N1...Possibly

That this has blown into a worst media frenzy since the 'fear of the year 2000' creating the computer melt down fiasco....Possibly

IMO...much ado about nothing and this is just another type/style/virus that we've been plague with since beginning of time...the BUG just keeps getting better at adaptation and will always be several steps ahead of mankind!

[Sonart]

.

Nothing dangerous? Okay, then why go through all the effort of calling it by another name? If, as you say, “calling it by another name does not {reduce} the danger or make it {greater,”} then why go through all the effort to make sure that it is not called by that name

We already told you. Some people have cultural problems dealing with a disease called the 'swine' flu. If calling it something else makes it easier for those people to deal with it, where's the problem?

You seem annoyed mostly that this appears to be a case of culturally sensitive 'political correctness'. So what if it is? How does that hurt you?

And so this must mean that you are of the mind that [health care] is not a matter of [science?] Why is that? Why is [health care] not a matter of science?

Health care is about far more than just science. It's also about treatment, and treatment involves dealing with people, and dealing with people involves "bedside manner", understanding the needs and emotions of the patients, not just the clinical science of the biology involved.

Why don’t we take another look at quotes 1 and 2 from the article:

And again... SO FRIGGING WHAT!?!?

Secondly, why is it not possible that the virus can be transmitted through cooked pork?

Because cooking kills viruses.

Cooking chicken thoroughly kills bird flu virus - msnbc, Apr. 2006

Fourthly, how do you think that those {particularly ignorant} individuals got the idea that the virus could be transmitted in cooked pork? What could possible give those lowly {unschooled} individuals that idea?

Who cares? If changing the name solves the problem, then why does that bother you?

Again, are you simply annoyed that it smacks of 'political correctness'. Wouldn't that mean you're against the idea because it's not 'politically correct' to conservative Americans?

This is surely a great example of a science that is said to be {unbiased} and {immune.}

Because it's not about the science, it's about delivery of health care to different cultures around the world. And 'Science' doesn't give a flying rip what we call it.

.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

.

LIke what?

Well, seeing that there has not been any of what may be seen as a {significant} uproar over this Action, just wondering if such Actions are still seen as {offensive} or {wrong.} After all, not long ago it appeared that they were seen as such.

Again, like what... that it offends your overly delicate sensibilities rather than millions of other overly delicate sensibilities?

Again, one just finds it quite interesting that it has not offended your {overly delicate} sensibilities, and that those who found such Actions so {offensive} and {wrong} are no longer finding them as such. There was a time when an administration was castigated because it was believed that they were involved in such Actions.

The only danger is taking our eye off the ball by giving a hoot what we call the disease rather than effectively educating the global public about it.

This would then mean that you are of the mind that what you call the disease is not part of “effectively” educating the global public about it? Why? Just semantics, huh?

Secondly, evidently, unlike you, somebody believes that what the disease if called is part of keeping “our” eye on the ball. Therefore, in their opinion, not giving a hoot about what the disease is called, would amount to taking “our” eye off the ball. So somebody is giving a hoot about what the disease is called?

This strain carries a lot of porcine flu genetics. So what? Does what we call it affect in anyway whatsoever how it affects people? Huge numbers of people around the world really,

So what? Well, then one will ask you essentially the same question that was asked of Mr. Gallo: If, so what, then why go through all the effort of trying to force people to call it by another name? If, as you suggest, that what you call the swine flu, does not “affect in anyway whatsoever how it affects people,” then why go through all of the effort to manipulate or doctor the name? Why disassociate? Why try to erase the swine linkage from the minds of the masses?

REALLY, REAALLY don't like the idea of a pig virus being in them. So fine... we don't call it a pig virus. The bigger question is why would YOU have a [problem] with this?

Again, the {bigger} question is why you don’t appear to have a problem with this? Are you not one who had a problem with {outside} influences interfering in science? Or at least you made it appear as if you did?

I seriously doubt that Science gives a flying fart what the media decides to call it.

Well, you may continue to deny it, but it is evident that they do. Let’s take a look at a highlight from the article:

Quote #1
“Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also started to shun the word “swine,” and a hapless reporter who used it during a radio interview was roundly scolded by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”

Now, give us all that spiel again about how Science doesn’t care about what the media decides to call a disease?

They care about stopping it, and if cultural sensitivity helps accomplish that, then it's all good.

Yes, and that is what we are discussing: Why is it that they care so much about stopping [it] from being called the Swine Flu?

Secondly, can you please explain how such cultural sensitivities will help stop the spread of the Flu? Please explain how changing the name will help to stop the spread? One would think that the constant reminder that pigs are reservoirs for these types of diseases would help to stop it?

There's all kinds of gullible people. Right here on this board we have people who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, people who believe in the existance of FEMA concentration camps, who believe that crop circles were made by aliens, who believe that evolution is false because it contradicts the Bible, and who believe that global warming is simply a phony concocted scare tactic by a few scientists out to rustle up some grant money.

Go figure.

.

And why are all of these things not in the realm of the {possible?} Why is it not {possible} that 9-11 is the result of a conspiracy? Why is it not {possible} for FEMA camps to exist? Why is it not {possible} for aliens to make crop circles etc…? What places the existence of these Things out of the realm of {possibility?}

[Sonart]

.

This would then mean that you are of the mind that what you call the disease is not part of “effectively” educating the global public about it? Why? Just semantics, huh?

Pretty much, yeah.

Educating the global public is about things like the fact that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, and that you get it from sexual activity and not from toilet seats. If doctors decided to call AIDS the 'MakingWhoopy Sickness', I couldn't care less as long as people get informed about how it spreads and how to treat it. Whether you call a flu strain the Swine Flu or H1N1 or "Viral Boogabooga" has nothing to do with educating anyone.

Now, give us all that spiel again about how Science doesn’t care about what the media decides to call a disease?

Except the Centers for Disease and Prevention are not scientists, they're doctors trying to stop a disease affecting people in many diverse cultures, and we already talked about how medicine is about treating patients, not just clinical science, haven't we.

Yes, and that is what we are discussing: Why is it that they care so much about stopping [it] from being called the Swine Flu?

DUUUUHH!!! So they can treat patients more effectively. If doctors can treat patients in different cultures more effectively or less effectively, depending on whether or not they insult the local cultural sensibilities, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER THE HELL YOU PERSONALLY THINK ABOUT THOSE SENSIBILITIES, which do you think they'll choose?

.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I'm still wondering why you do {this}?

He is probably doing it for the same reasons as you. Have you never thought of that?

Lack of an original idea???...Possibly

Or in this case, it may be to much of an {original} idea.

The unfortunate family that first was diagnosed just happened to work at the 'swine farm'???...Possibly

Or maybe the boy who is said to be the first to be diagnosed just happened to live close to a swine farm?

1. Mexican Boy Was First Confirmed Case

2. Face-to-face with flu boy

3. Earliest case of swine flu tucked away in Mexico, officials say

Because calling it the 'wet-back revenge' would have been in really POOR TASTE!...Possibly

Especially if the possibility exists that it did not [start] in Mexico?

1. Farmer may have given swine flu to pigs, Canada says

2. CDC Confirms Ties to Virus First Discovered in U.S. Pig

3. Is it the "Mexican Flu", the "Swine Flu" or the "Human Flu"?

Because it happened in Mexico they couldn't blame the 'ASIAN' countries for this flu...so they zeroed in on the minute detail and forgot that it would/could be something else entirely???...Possibly

Such as? What else would or could it be?

That for lack of proof and thorough study, the knee jerk reaction was...blame it on the Mexicans & what they do for a living so that you can just incorporate 2 large issues into one 'flu bug' and get everyone stirred up???...Possibly

Are you saying that scientists are actually making declarations without {proof?} These scientists have come to a conclusion when they had no {proof?}

Now, this is interesting to know. This is because, one was under the impression that Christians, Muslims, and those of the acknowledged religions are the only ones who are guilty of such Actions? Interesting to know that you can add the world's scientists into the equation of those who are said to make declarations without {proof .}

Secondly, who or what would you blame it on?

And now that the 'MEDIA' has gotten fixated on the 'SWINE' verbiage they'll never be able to change/call it what it really is...H1N1...Possibly

This must mean that you are of the mind that it is not {really} a SWINE flu? Does calling it H1N1 mean that it is not {really} a SWINE flu?

There goes the educating of the people.

That this has blown into a worst media frenzy since the 'fear of the year 2000' creating the computer melt down fiasco....Possibly

Possibly

IMO...much ado about nothing and this is just another type/style/virus that we've been plague with since beginning of time...the BUG just keeps getting better at adaptation and will always be several steps ahead of mankind!

And so, besides your attachment to pigs, why do you believe that the name should be changed?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

We already told you. Some people have cultural problems dealing with a disease called the 'swine' flu. If calling it something else makes it easier for those people to deal with it, where's the problem?

Such as? What cultural problems are you referring to?

You seem annoyed mostly that this appears to be a case of culturally sensitive 'political correctness'. So what if it is?

Again, one just finds it quite interesting that this does not annoy you, and that those who found such Actions so {annoying} and {wrong} are no longer finding them as such. Why is that?

How does that hurt you?

Actually, there should be a couple of questions, but here are two that we can start with:

The first question should be, can and does such an Action hurt? And if it can and does, then how does it or how will it hurt people?

The second question should be, can and does such an Action help? And if it can and does, then how does it or how will it help people?

Now, so far, you have said that it helps because there are cultural problems surrounding the name of the disease, and changing the name does something that is so helpful and so needed that it far outweighs the act of not changing the name. You can continue at any time and finish explaining what that something is, Mr. Sonart?

Health care is about far more than just science. It's also about treatment, and treatment involves dealing with people, and dealing with people involves "bedside manner", understanding the needs and emotions of the patients, not just the clinical science of the biology involved.

And so again, this must mean that you are of the mind that treatment is not about science? Dealing with people is not about science? “Bedside manners” are not about science? Understanding the needs and emotions of patients is not about science? Please explain why?

And again... SO FRIGGING WHAT!?!?

And again, one just finds it quite interesting that those who found such Actions to be so intellectually dishonest and {wrong} are no longer finding them as such? Now such an Action is met with a, “SO FRIGGING WHAT!?!?“

Because cooking kills viruses.

Cooking chicken thoroughly kills bird flu virus - msnbc, Apr. 2006

Mr. Sonart, that’s not {exactly} what the article says.

Secondly, it appears that all [cooking] is not used to kill all viruses and does not kill all viruses

1. Cooking Up Millions of Viruses for a New Vaccine

Who cares? If changing the name solves the problem, then why does that bother you?

Because someone still has to shew us all how changing the name of the virus will solve the problem that is the virus transmitting from pigs to humans? That is what you were positing isn‘t it ? So again, maybe at this time you will shew us all how changing the name of the virus will stop or prevent it from being transmitted from pigs to humans? Please explain how changing the name will stop that transmission? How does that Action help to stop or prevent that spread? One would think that the constant reminder that pigs are reservoirs for these types of diseases would be of more help in stopping or preventing the transmission of the disease?

Now, this is not to say that changing the name does not help to stop or prevent a problem; it does. If people are associating or linking the transmission of the disease to pigs, changing the name may help to stop or prevent that linkage. And in turn, such a prevention would help to stop those people who are not buying pork because of that link But changing the name for the {express} purpose of helping to stop or prevent its linkage to pigs so that people will not stop buying pork is not what you were positing, or was it?

Again, are you simply annoyed that it smacks of 'political correctness'.

And again, the fact of the matter is that one just finds it quite interesting that those who found such Actions to be so intellectually dishonest and {wrong} are no longer finding them as such? Now such an Action is met with a “SO FRIGGING WHAT!?!?“

Wouldn't that mean you're against the idea because it's not 'politically correct' to conservative Americans?

Conservative Americans? One was always under the impression that such Actions were not “politically correct” for you and some others? Again, there was a time when an administration was castigated because it was believed that they were involved in such Actions in respects to global warming.

Because it's not about the science, it's about delivery of health care to different cultures around the world.

And again, this must mean that you are of the mind that delivering health care to different cultures around the world is not about science? And if so, then can you please shew us how this is? How do you deliver health care without science? How are you and the others able to accomplish such a feat?

And 'Science' doesn't give a flying rip what we call it.

Again, you can continue to deny that it does until the sun grows cold, but Reality says different. The article and the fact that we have individuals from the field of science who are willing to go through all of the trouble to change the name, tells us something different. Again examine the event:

Quote #1
“Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also started to shun the word “swine,” and a hapless reporter who used it during a radio interview was roundly scolded by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”

[Jack]

Health care is about far more than just science. It's also about treatment, and treatment involves dealing with people, and dealing with people involves "bedside manner", understanding the needs and emotions of the patients, not just the clinical science of the biology involved.

And so again, this must mean that you are of the mind that treatment is not about science? Dealing with people is not about science? “Bedside manners” are not about science? Understanding the needs and emotions of patients is not about science? Please explain why?

You're arguing against something Sonart didn't say. He said health care "is about far more than just science", not as you inaccurately phrased it, " that treatment is not about science". In a debate, inaccurately representing your opponent's opinion is creating a strawman and is intellectually dishonest.