Talk:Influenza A virus subtype H5N1/Archive 2

message: I took nearly all this article and merged the information into the avian influenza article. It has since been reverted, so if you're thinking about integrating the two, foregt it. Her Pegship 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: The "Bird Flu Spread on October 26th, 2005" is neither up-to-date or accurate. It should be updated or removed. 
It appears most of this text was originally taken from the Avian influenza article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_influenza#H5N1
Unfortunately the main article was largely left as is so still contained way too much text. As such, people have been modifying the main article and not this in some cases. Someone needs to go through the work of cleaning up the Avian influenza article to summarise & remove unnecessary stuff on H5N1 and move anything new here (sorry too busy).Nil Einne 13:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at this. See the avian influenza article for the result. Her Pegship 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BanyanTree reverted my edits almost immediately, so if you want to merge the two articles, you should try a different approach, as s/he apparently feels this should still be a separate article.Her Pegship 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is the result of BanyanTree cleaning up a very long and straggly avian influenza article. I also believe the pages should be kept separate, if only to keep the page size manageable on this very important topic. Duplication means that people do not know which article to edit. Wizzy…☎ 18:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of this and Avian Influenza article 

message: To those who are so zealous about protecting wikipedia from copyright lawsuits, please read the following:
*Fair Use
*Wikipedia: Fair use materials and special requirements
*Common dreams website, which 90% of its content is  under Fair Use Common dreams pulls whole entire articles off of the internet and posts them, in their entirty on their site.  The Fair Use notice that Common Dreams uses:
:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.-unsigned
===Copyright and fair use===
Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."
See  for further information.
"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS
The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.
1. Limit coursepack materials to
*single chapters
*single articles from a journal issue
*several charts, graphs or illustrations
*other similarly small parts of a work. " 
from  illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.
The New York Times itself quotes others.
"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."  therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.
Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.
While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).
Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use under copyright 

message: Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."
See  for further information.
"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS
The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.
1. Limit coursepack materials to
*single chapters
*single articles from a journal issue
*several charts, graphs or illustrations
*other similarly small parts of a work. " 
from  illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.
The New York Times itself quotes others.
"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."  therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.
Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.
While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).
Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and fair use

message: Well, I think the key issue here is that it wasn't just part of the work that was copied - it was all of it.  Most judges would uphold that copying the entire work consitutes a violation.  --Quintin3265 05:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entirety of the work 

message: I wrote the following under 'prevention' a little while ago: 
:Tamiflu, an antiviral agent, may help prevent the development of a human strain. The reason for using this is not to suppress the bird flu but possible other infections, which, if present in an individual, might combine with the bird flu, creating a strain that would be more infectious to humans. 
The explanation has since been removed. I myself had some doubts about writing this, because it might stop people from using it because it's just for the good of mankind, not for themselves particularly. Is that the reason for the removal? DirkvdM 09:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mechanism by which drugs like Tamiflu works involves reducing the amount of infectious virus produced by cells and reducing the spread of viruses. I assume that "a human strain" means a strain that would more easily infect humans or more easily pass from human to human. Each time a new cell is infected, there is a chance for virus mutation. Anything that reduces virus infections will reduce the chances of evolutionary change. It is also true that one way avian flu could evolve would be through genetic recombination with another flu virus inside of an infected cell. Tamiflu can limit the spread of many flu strains and reduce the opportunity for avian flu to genetically recombine with other strains. However, I think it is important to put these effects of Tamiflu into perspective. Under what circumstances might Tamiflu use produce a significant change in the rate of evolution of avian flu? It would have to be the case that a significant fraction of the viral evolution would be blocked, which would require that a significant fraction of avian flu infections be blocked by Tamiflu. It is not clear to me that this is possible. Rather than the vague "may help prevent" that was in the article, it would be better to explain all of the steps that can be taken to limit the evolution of avian flu and which ones are most likely to be the most important. For example, teaching people to limit contact with infected animals and animal waste is more important than selling Tamiflu to people who are not in contact with the virus. --JWSchmidt 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ... a possible bird flu pandemic after recombination of H5N1 with another human flu virus.
Which leaves the question whether we should give this info. I suppose we should because that's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do and only the more interested will read this. Hell, it was even on tv. Although that's no excuse, really - we shouldn't base our moral standards on tv shows. DirkvdM 07:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hold on, that phrase on the French wikiopedia was added after I edited this article, so it may very well have been copied form here. DirkvdM 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In the online version of the Dutch newpaper NRC Handelsblad (paid-for login required) I just read something similar. Except that it says that vaccination is meant just to prevent people from getting infected with the bird flu and an existing human human flu virus (during the coming flu season) because that might lead to the creation of a mixed virus tha combines the qualities qualities of both the bird flu (potentially lethal) and the human flu (easy infection). So that's not about tamiflu, but I'm fairly sure I didn't misunderstand Nieuwslicht. And in the same newspaper it says that tamiflu doesn't offer any protection against bird flu. DirkvdM 10:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "tamiflu doesn't offer any protection against bird flu" - Previously, bird flu isolates have been shown to be sensitive to tamiflu (oseltamivir), for example: (Comparison of Efficacies of RWJ-270201, Zanamivir, and Oseltamivir against H5N1, H9N2, and Other Avian Influenza Viruses). This is why countries are using it on people who are exposed to avian flu. It has been "big news" when tamiflu-resistant strains of avian flu have been isolated: Avian flu: isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus. (download file PDF). Monitoring is on-going to see if tamiflu-resistant strains become common. As of now, they are not. --JWSchmidt 18:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that in the newspaper's archive, so maybe that was old info (shouldn't they remove it then, I wonder). But is the other reason (preventing a combination of bird and human flu) also valid and, if so, which is the most compelling reason for using tamiflu? That seems like one of the most important things the article could say. DirkvdM 09:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important reason to use it is that it decreases your chance of DYING from flu (avian or otherwise). Since there is enough for the rich and powerful, but not enough for the rest of us, it would not surprise me in the slightest if "we are taking it for the benefit of all mankind" noises were made by the controlled media puppets. WAS 4.250 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Do I understand correctly that any such effect is uncertain and if it exists the effect is negligible compared to other methods, including the other effects of the administration of tamiflu? But you speak of genetic recombination, which is alteration of the gentic information. As I understand it, that is one threat. But 'Nieuwslicht' spoke of something different, namely the combination of the inside of the one (the genetic information) with the outside of the other. From what I read in virus#Steps associated with viral reproduction, I assume that what is meant is that the reproduced genetic info by chance combines with the capsid of the other (human) virus, if present. But now I wonder if a vaccine mix wouldn't make more sense here. Alas I've erased the recording, and I'm no longer sure if they were speaking of tamiflu here (alsthough they did mention it). DirkvdM 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for inoculations 

message: I find the graphic showing the spread of avian flu misleading. Apparently, a whole country is colored yellow if there's any reported incidents from that country. This causes the entire Russia to be colored. I don't know if H5N1 is that prevalent in Russia; I suspect that not all parts of that country is affected. The graphic seems to suggest that diseases somehow observe or respect national boundaries -- something that we know is not true. - 71.246.5.238
* I agree. In addition to the above, I suggest using one colour (e.g. yellow) for regions in which avian cases of H5N1 have been identified, and a different colour (e.g. red) for those which have had human cases? - Gobeirne 18:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The map also shows Great Britain to have H5N1; it doesn't.  A bird died in a quarantine facility but no wild birds and no poultry have been found to have the disease, and the bird is believed to have contracted the disease while in storage in Taiwan.  Officially, the UK is still H5N1-free.   And about Japan: there have not been any confirmed H5N1 outbreaks as far as I know; there have been outbreaks of other types of bird flu recently, but not H5N1.  --Jamieli 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A swan died yesterdaty in Fife from H5N1.  It's still wrong, however, as the swan died in Scotland, which means that it was Scotland that should be hilighted in red and not the whole of the UK. --Veratien 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's still very misleading, though.  I look at that and think it's much, much worse than it really is. --Veratien 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic of the extent of H5N1 spread misleading 

message: I'm just curious: why does a to-date 51% death rate indicate that the total death rate would only be 2-3%? -Litefantastic 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is some confusion over "Mortality rate" and "Fatality rate". Fatality rate is number of death per infected people, and it is said to be around one-third to 50%. The Mortality rate is death per population, which therefore takes into account other factors such as how effective the disease spreads, etc, which is hard to predict but should be considerably lower than the fatality rate. --Vsion 06:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it is from the news. I assumed any detected H5N1 cases would be documented, given the concerns. But for known cases, as shown in the table, the fatality rate is indeed around 50%. --Vsion 19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this based largely on data for people who have been treated in hospitals? YES The test for H5N1 is difficult. Nonhospital/lab tests are unreliable. WAS 4.250 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Has a real effort has been made to estimate how many people are infected but not treated in a hospital? NO The real question is the infection and death rates for the still nonexistant pandemic version of the virus, and as it does not exist it can not be known. The current versions of H5N1 don't spread well person to person so having antibodies against it is not meaningful for any useful purpose given the cost of verifying the fact.WAS 4.250 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: any detected H5N1 cases would be documented YES The difficulty of detecting that it is H5N1 insures that the fact will be documented. But not necesarily reported (example China). WAS 4.250 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality rate 

message: Could there be a little info on prevention for human, as to what should we eat or what to do if we think our food is infected. Should we cook every aviary product, can we drink milk. 132.204.207.108 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: At the end of the H5N1#Mutations and strains section; bad link?
::Thanks. I deleted the paragraph because the link has gone bad and the director was quoted the next day as saying it was all very very minor. almost sheepish. A big announcement about was supposed to happen but it never happened or was as if never happened. I'm guessing it was hype. WAS 4.250 22:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to cytokine storm in lieu of the quote. WAS 4.250 23:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad URL, long quotes, commercial source 

message: Back around October 21 this was added as a note:
:H5N1 Bird Flu Information Used under the fair use policy of the United States copyright law, and under Wikipedia fair use policy See also: What is "Fair Use" in Copyright Law?
along with some text in the body of the article that was later removed as a copy right violation. As far as I can tell, the source is no longer cited, so I am going to remove it from the reference list. --JWSchmidt 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think the intention of the section called Global spread 2004/2005 is to document the highly pathogenic strain that has been shown to have a limited capacity to infect humans. We we should remove most reports of H5 type avian flu that were not the highly pathogenic type from the lists of places/times where the highly pathogenic strain has actually been confirmed. For example, the article has, "On 31 October 2005, Canada has discovered a strain of H5 avian flu in wild birds and is now checking whether it is the same H5N1 killer strain which has spread to Europe." However, none of the reports of H5N1 virus in Canada have ot been confirmed as the highly pathogenic type (see). --JWSchmidt 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I read this and this, changed the article, but reverted myself after reading this and the below at :
:WHO says the samples at GenBank were contaminated and dismiss the President of Recombinomics, Niman, as a man who
::has not published in the scientific literature since 1996 and is not a flu expert. WHO will not issue an official statement about the case, Klaus Stöhr, WHO's global influenza coordinator says: "We're not going to bother 6.5 billion people with something that's of no public health importance." Webster, too, says any publicity is too much: "It's so easy these days for somebody with a Web site to create a lot of panic." WAS 4.250 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recombinomics 

message: ===Reference===
Influenza viruses have a relatively high mutation rate that is characteristic of RNA viruses. Influenza genes are carried on a set of eight separate RNA molecules (called: PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NP, NA, M, and NS). This segmentation of the influenza genome facilitates genetic recombination by segment reassortment in hosts who are infected with two different influenza viruses at the same time.
(The following paragraph moved from "treatment" is both unsourced and partially incorrect:)
Influenza viruses have ten genes, three of which specify the structure of proteins that are medically relevant as targets for antiviral drugs and antibodies. The hemagglutinin (HA), neuraminidase (NA), and M2 are essential viral proteins with functions that can be inhibited antiviral drugs such as oseltamivir and rimantadine or bound by virus-inactivating antibodies produced by the immune system. The HA glycoprotein forms spikes at the surface of flu viruses that function to attach viruses to cells. This attachment is required for efficient transfer of flu virus genes into cells, a process that can be blocked by antibodies that bind to the hemagglutinin proteins. The viral neuraminidase protein is important for the release of new viruses from infected cells. The M2 transmembrane protein is an ion channel required for efficient infection.
(This is what the source ACTUALLY says:)
"Orthomyxovirus replication takes about 6 hours and kills the host cell. The viruses attach to permissive cells via the hemagglutinin subunit, which binds to cell membrane glycolipids or glycoproteins containing N-acetylneuraminic acid, the receptor for virus adsorption. The virus is then engulfed by pinocytosis into endosomes. The acid environment of the endosome causes the virus envelope to fuse with the plasma membrane of the endosome, uncoating the nucleocapsid and releasing it into the cytoplasm. A transmembrane protein derived from the matrix gene (M2) forms an ion channel for protons to enter the virion and destabilize protein binding allowing the nucleocapsid to be transported to the nucleus, where the genome is transcribed by viral enzymes to yield viral mRNA. Unlike replication of other RNA viruses, orthomyxovirus replication depends on the presence of active host cell DNA. The virus scavenges cap sequences from the nascent mRNA generated in the nucleus by transcription of the host DNA and attaches them to its own mRNA. These cap sequences allow the viral mRNA to be transported to the cytoplasm, where it is translated by host ribosomes. The nucleocapsid is assembled in the nucleus.Virions acquire an envelope and undergo maturation as they bud through the host cell membrane. During budding, the viral envelope hemagglutinin is subjected to proteolytic cleavage by host enzymes. This process is necessary for the released particles to be infectious. Newly synthesized virions have surface glycoproteins that contain N acetylneuraminic acid as a part of their carbohydrate structure, and thus are vulnerable to self-agglutination by the hemagglutinin. A major function of the viral neuraminidase is to remove these residues.".
(this paragraph is both true and sourced and discusses three of the RNAs)
"The 3 viral envelope proteins of influenza A virus are most medically relevant. The hemagglutinin (HA), neuraminidase (NA), and M2 are essential viral proteins targeted by host antibodies or antiviral drugs such as oseltamivir and rimantadine. The HA glycoprotein forms spikes at the surface of virions, mediating attachment to host cell sialoside receptors and subsequent entry by membrane fusion. The NA forms knoblike structures on the surface of virus particles and catalyzes their release from infected cells, allowing virus spread. The M2 is a transmembrane protein that forms an ion channel required for the uncoating process that precedes viral gene expression." 
(this paragraph shows those 3 may not be the ones responsible for virulance, and thus NOT the only ones medically important)
"[A] lysine at residue 627 in the PB2 protein was crucial for the high level of virulence in mice infected with the H5N1/97 virus. In a pig model of influenza, the pathogenicity of influenza virus was related to the nonstructural (NS) gene of the H5N1/97 virus, which was believed to have conferred more resistance to the antiviral effects of interferon and tumor necrosis factor alpha (30). Recent studies also showed that pathogenesis in humans may be related to aberrant immune responses, which may be related to NS or other internal genes." 
===Comments===
What do YOU propose given the above? If you make no response, I'll ignore your revert and carry on the best I can. WAS 4.250 17:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is incorrect about the paragraph from the "treatment" section? If you want to add additional references that describe the viral proteins, feel free. Wikipedia articles are not collections of quotes. If you change the order of sections in the article you will probably have to change the order in which topics are mentioned. In this case, rather than paste in another quote that duplicates what is already in the article, the solution would seem to be to just move the description of the proteins up in the article. --JWSchmidt 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginning of the structure subsection 

message: What do YOU propose given the above? If you make no response, I'll ignore your revert and carry on the best I can. WAS 4.250 17:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is incorrect about the paragraph from the "treatment" section? If you want to add additional references that describe the viral proteins, feel free. Wikipedia articles are not collections of quotes. If you change the order of sections in the article you will probably have to change the order in which topics are mentioned. In this case, rather than paste in another quote that duplicates what is already in the article, the solution would seem to be to just move the description of the proteins up in the article. --JWSchmidt 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "So what's the worst that could happen?
* A pandemic of human-adapted avian influenza such as the 1997 H5N1 virus.
* Such a reassortant could easily have a mortality rate of 30-40%.
* Within a few months 10-25% of the world's population could have been infected.
* 6.3 billion * 0.4 * 0.25 = over half a billion deaths.
* or worse .."
Quoted verbatim from  WAS 4.250 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't panic the public 

message: Two clades infecting humans
It would appear that there are now two clades of H5N1 that infect humans.  Can someone with knowledge on this subject update the article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060320/ts_nm/birdflu_genetics_dc
:Thanks. I deleted out of date data to adjust the article to reflect the new data. But I hesitate to add scientific data based on popular reporting as they get things wrong so often. Anyone have a link to the scientific study itself? We could add a few sentences about this part: "Now there are two clades of the Z genotype [that infect humans, there was only one a couple years ago]. There were also small numbers of viruses [(ie one or more other clades)] in birds that were genotype V or W or recently identified genotype G [or Z? what happened to the other Z clade that didn't infect humans?]."WAS 4.250 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Z genotype clades evolve in 2005 

message: H5N1 was reported to probably be in Turkey, then reported probably not in Turkey, and now as of Jan.4 back to probably in Turkey. But reports say "probably" , "The WHO said it has yet to confirm the Turkey cases, but it is checking into them." , " The Associated Press reports that more tests are being carried out." .
Confirmation one way or another will be available in a day or so. But looks like H5N1 to me. WAS 4.250 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H5N1 

message: This article is linked to from Wikinews, we have an infobox that links directly to the section currently titled "Global spread".  This is referenced to obtain the current confirmed death toll.  Could this please stay with the same sub-section title so I don't repeatedly have to re-read the article and find the new section heading for the bit that contains the table? --213.193.176.101 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wikinews relied on the table that used to be present in the Global Spread section, see this infobox.  Where now can I find the current figure for the official death toll? --Brianmc 12:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I found out some had mangled the template. --Brianmc 12:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: Hi people!
Just wondering, how many times a week is the global spread grid of figures updated? Reasom am asking is because we at the World Wide Help Group are going to be putting up a snapshot of the h5n1 outbreak on the Avian Flu Help blog and we're thinking of getting a wiki of help resources and the like going soon just like this one that we did during the tsunami. Any ideas?
thanks,
Angelo EmbuldeniyaWorldWideHelpGroup 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Global Spread grid 

message: Feel free to link to our major H5N1 pages: H5N1, Template:H5N1 cases, Template:H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, Global spread of H5N1, and Influenza pandemic. 
THE CONTENTS OF THE TABLE ARE SOURCED FROM 
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/en/
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) IS TASKED WITH MAINTAINING AN ACCURATE UP TO DATE ACCOUNT OF CONFIRMED HUMAN CASES AND DEATHS. THEY ARE OUR SOURCE. THEY SHOULD BE YOUR SOURCE.
The World Health Organization announces the current phase of the pandemic alert here.
See "Assessing the pandemic threat" at . WHO published a first edition of the Global Influenza Preparedness Plan in 1999, and updated it in April 2005.  See  and  which define the responsibilities of WHO and national authorities in case of an influenza pandemic. This is the first time a pandemic has been anticipated and is being prepared for. WAS 4.250 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: answer

message: your suggestions have been taken, thanks a lot & keep up the great work! WorldWideHelpGroup 08:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: thanks!

message: mentioned once...
Unfamiliar.
Is it a misreading for H1?   Or does one see it in birds Midgley 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H7 

message: We have information on WHO's H5N1 reference Labs also known as National Influenza Centers for each country which includes the doctors'/experts' names & contact details -- this info would be vital for sampling tests and the like, cross checking if you will. 
We are planning on either getting another wiki page going for the ref labs and linking it here to this article or do you prefer including it straght in this article, there are over 20 labs along with their details. Your suggestions are most appreciated.
thanks! WorldWideHelpGroup 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to the size recommendations for articles, I would think a separate page might be preferred (this is mostly meant to help the large number of people with slow internet access). Just my 2 cents. Awolf002 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we are already as large as Wikipedia articles are recommended to get. Additional information gets hived off into seperate articles like you see in the H5N1 box at the top right of this article. WAS 4.250 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database, so any article is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and not a list, unless its a list of related encyclopedia articles (actual or potential). National Influenza Centers doesn't yet exist, you might want to place your data there. I just googled the term and it definitly qualifies to be an article. And if informamation on any one of the centers becomes too big, it can be hived off into its own article. Don't worry about getting everything perfect, but always "save page" with the contents in a readable state. Connecting it to the existing H5N1 series of articles can be done in many ways. I'll be happy to do that. WAS 4.250 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO H5N1 Ref Labs Info 

message: WHO Collaborating Centres and Reference Laboratories involved in annual influenza vaccine composition recommendations
Reference Laboratories
WHO Collaborating Centres
Dr I.D. Gust
WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza
45 Poplar Rd
Parkville
Victoria
3052 Australia
Telephone: +61 3 8344 3963
Fax: +61 3 9347 1540
Influenza news on: http://www.influenzacentre.org/index.htm
Dr M. Tashiro
WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza
Department of Viral Diseases and Vaccine Control
National Institute of Infectious Diseases
Gakuen 4-7-2
Musashi-Murayama
Tokyo 208-0011
Japan
Telephone: +81 42 565 2498
Fax: +81 42 565 2498
http://idsc.nih.go.jp/index.html
Dr A. Hay
WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza
National Institute for Medical Research
The Ridgeway, Mill Hill
London NW7 1AA
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 208 959 3666
Fax: +44 208 906 44 77
Dr N. Cox
WHO Collaborating Centre for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Control of Influenza
Influenza Branch
Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases
National Centers for Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop G16
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
United States of America
Telephone: +1 404 639 3591
Fax: +1 404 639 2334
Influenza news on:http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/fluactivity.htm
Reference Laboratories
Dr G. Grohmann
Immunology and Vaccines
Therapeutic Goods Administration Laboratories
P.O. Box 100, Woden ACT, 2606 Australia Telephone: +61 2 6232 8490 Fax: +61 2 6232 8564 http://www.tga.gov.au
Dr J. Wood
Division of Virology
National Institute for Biological Standards and Control
Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar,
Hertfordshire EN6 3QG
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1 707 641 000
Fax: +44 1 707 646 730
e-mail: enquiries@nibsc.ac.uk
Dr R. Levandowski
Division of Viral Products
Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852
United States of America
Telephone: +1 301 827 1908
Fax: +1 301 402 5128
http://www.fda.gov/cber 
WAS 4.250 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to page containing below added to article

message: Thanks for the suggestions, last night i started on a wiki page and named it H5N1RefLabs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5N1RefLabs
and I just saw the suggestion for national influenza centers, so I've copied the contents there as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Influenza_Centers
So we've ended up with 2 duplicate pages, more prone to go with national influenza centers as mentioned above -- could someone please sorta' absorb the centers' info into the h5n1 article? If there's going to be a url change, please mention it here as we're currently linking to the national influenza centers wiki page from the blog.
thanks!
Angelo Embuldeniya
WorldWideHelpGroup 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: H5N1 Ref Labs -- listings info

message: I have a concern that I'd like to be addressed... Because Olympic is currently being hosted in Turin, Italy while same time we discovers that Italy just got its first bird flu case (not sure if it's first or not, since I noticed that the article mentioned the bird flu as orginating in 1959 but I think it said ti's really similar, not same one). Because bird flu apparently has been spreading without even stopping at all despite all the efforts to contain it, isn't it possible that this bird flu may reach Turin, Italy sometimes later? This would be castrosphere, because, while professional atheles, VIPs, and officials may be better off and well-insulated from this such outbreak, the tourists are at far greater risks because they aren't much controlled and that they're foreigners in most respects.
In effect, if bird flu made it there, it may be possible that spread will get even bigger or so, since those tourists will be returning home after Olympic completed, which means many, many countries, including, but not limited to, United States, Canada, Australia, and many other countries, even those that are still unaffected by the spread at this time. Olympic being held in same country as where bird flu is reported in Sicily is really a bad timing. It was really coincidence since this could not have been anticipated, especially considering the fact that the decision to accept the bid from Turin was actually made way before this bird flu even made bigger concern. Bird flu, while a major media piece, did not reached the highest level of concern until about late 2005 or early 2006. Too late for such change or at least even being prepared at all.
I have yet to see any information about any preparation in anticipation of this bird flu if a human case is reported in Turin during Olympic events. Obviously, the person infected would be guarantined, I think, but it will take time before it's discovered and thus spread may widen, making it difficult to aggressively combats it.
I mean, I want this concern to be addressed with respect to this coincidence or, even worse, a bad luck. Thanks and I will appreciate if anyone can address this concern. I'm feeling uneasy about this situation I'm imagining in my mind. -_-
Respectfully Yours,
Legion 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A LOT of people are having the same MISUNDERSTANDING. BIRDS NOT PEOPLE are catching and transmitting and causing the global spread of H5N1. People only catch it if they act in inappropriate ways (eat sick birds, play with sick birds, etc.) or in a couple of cases lovingly cared for a sick relative (who caught it from a bird) in a very hands on way (no professional health givers have caught the disease). Currently, it is VERY hard for humans to catch. It is very EASY for birds to catch it one from another. some species of birds don't usually die from it. Poulty usually DOES die from it. The biggest worry is that it MIGHT someday mutate into a form that IS easy to pass from human to human. If it does, governments around the world will be quaranteining, stopping large gatherings, cancelling international travel, and other very dratic things. You won't need wikipedia to tell you about it if it becomes a person to person transmissible illness - you'll hear about it from everyone. WAS 4.250 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concerns about Italy and Olympic... 

message: I found this article worth mentioning here. The author seems to think wild birds are unreasonable victimized. The argument is also good, infection is not following the wild birds migrating trajectory. Now, if we are placing the blame on the wrong victim for personal reason, wouldn't that allow the disease to grow? Does anyone think its worth mentioning it on the article? This paragraph would then be modified:
:A highly pathogenic variation of H5N1 is currently spreading across the world from areas where it is endemic. Migrating waterfowl (wild ducks, geese, and swans) carry H5N1, often without themselves becoming sick. - unsigned
Infection IS following the wild birds migrating trajectory. It just took a while for the relevent governments to admit it. WAS 4.250 03:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic or wild birds responsible 

message: Bird flu is deadly to humans. My question is: Is it deadly to all mammals? --84.146.195.25 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is animals that don't die from it can walk round looking healthy and spreading it to animals and people who do die from it, in particular cats are a real problem.--Hontogaichiban 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is largely true, the bigger problem is the lack of good data on H5N1's spread in both wild bird and wild mammal species and the lack of even a clue as to its future spread because H5N1 is uniquely deadly and contagious to so many species. It acts differently in each species it infects and adapts differently in each species; creating ever more new varieties. We don't have a clue to exactly how many bird species can harbor this virus. H5N1 is the first HPAI Avian influenza virus to just keep spreading and not automaticlly die out when its domestic bird hosts were killed. WAS 4.250 13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the bird flu deadly to all mammals? 

message: Is there any way of knowing what proportion of infected birds are killed by the virus? I imagine it's a difficult question to answer (especially since there are thousands of different species of birds), but I'm curious. Has there been research done on chickens, for example? Just wondering. Harry R 07:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatality rate amongst birds 

message: This new report Fowl play: The poultry industry's central role in the bird flu crisis from GRAIN should be noted and added. I'll not do it myself as H5N1 isn't a subject I know a lot about - MPF 15:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be noted. It should not be added. It is ignorant lying bullshit without an ounce of scientific credibility. There are significant issues relating to the H5N1 evolution and China's poultry practices, but they are entirely conjectural so far, and this article doesn't address even one of the real issues. Further a proper addressing of the real issues would not go here but in articles on Poultry farming and Livestock vaccination. WAS 4.250 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV, and you shouldn't impose it on the article. It is well referenced, and very detailed. By all means mention conflicting POVs, but wikipedia should reflect NPOV and cite all sides of the debate. - MPF 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "H5N1 isn't a subject I know a lot about". On the other hand, H5N1 is a subject I do know a lot about. My assertion to you is that the references supplied by the article do not back up its major conclusion (because for several months now, I have literally read everything I could on the subject from the most reliable sources - the scientists doing the research). This is readily dealt with by not using this article as a source; but instead, using good sources (which you claim it uses; and at this point, I am not disputing; as what is a good source depends on the use to which it is put). Further, any real addressing of the issues would not go here but at Poultry farming and Livestock vaccination. It is neither censorship nor inappropriate to put data in the right Wikipedia article and to require a source to be trustworthy. This article may quote good sources, but it is not itself a good source. Blogs and the Recombinomics site (see the section with that name above) are also untrustworthy though they may themselves reference good sources. For more good sources than you can shake a stick at check out the on line links in the "Sources" and "Further reading" sections of H5N1. I've read them. I highly recommend them. WAS 4.250 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article advocates against commercial poultry.  Some points may be valid, but are certainly cherrypicked and it doesnt consider any alternate explanation - just one argument after another (and not very well referenced, actually).  It may be compelling reading but its not science.  Unfortunately, advocacy groups are using the public interest in H5N1 as a "vector" for airing their own cause.  If we see human to human transmission then expect this to increase 1000-fold.  Dont fall for it. 66.236.150.178 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New report 

message: Today they found H5N1 in a dead cat in Germany on the island Rügen.(heute-news 16:00)Stone 15:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the cat that ate the canary. (gives the phrase a whole new meaning...) Istvan 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Global spread of H5N1#Tigers, leopards, domestic cats. Among other things it says "The spread to more and more types and populations of birds and the ability of cats to catch H5N1 from eating this natural prey means the creation of a reservoir for H5N1 in cats where the virus can adapt to mammals is one of the many possible pathways to a pandemic." People who say it really isn't a pandemic threat just don't know the facts. There are so many pathways to a pandemic and this is such a unique case in terms of its speed of mutation, cross species pathogenicity, and ability to be spread by wild birds that all the experts believe its a matter of time. And the bit about maybe the pandemic when it comes may not be H5N1 simply acknowledges the fact that a genetic shift can cause a virus of the H5N1 subtype to mutate into another even more deadly (to humans) other H5 or H7 subtype (the other H subtypes are not, so far, highly pathogenic). WAS 4.250 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead cat with H5N1 in Germany 

message: FYI several birds have been confirmed to carry the H5M1 virus.
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3187&date=20060303&PHPSESSID=3f96814948fdcb9df12916b8e570eff9
It would be good if someone familiar with this topic can check official sources and maybe utpdate the article. Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this virus but the article didn't say it wasn't confirmed to be the aggressive variant. I haven't myself read through the H5N1 article so the suffix N1 maybe tells that it's aggressive? Anyway H5 was confirmed. Maybe stick low with this for some days to see what it's really like. Aqualize 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird cases confirmed in sweden 

message: Is this supposed to redirect to the "Transmission and Infection of H5N1" article, or not? Shouldn't it just redirect to the main H5N1 article? 63.192.190.119 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to H5N1 article on right side. 

message: I just started a forum on H5N1. looks like this is going to be a huge problem soon...
http://www.allaboutflu.com
Trimmer56 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam spam spam spam spam 

message: Three people agreed to make this article the Good Article Collaboration of the week . WAS 4.250 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments for users go in article space. Comments for editors go in talk space. So this tag goes in talk space. WAS 4.250 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe help the whole series of H5N1 and flu articles go together better? Or pick the one that needs the most help? Or change the referencing style in H5N1 to  this?   WAS 4.250 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're just supposed to be improving one article over the course of one week, the thing is our collaboration isn't very good yet, I don't even think anybody showed up for the first article :/. And for the refs, are you saying all the blue looking superscripts should turn purple via the ref thing? Homestarmy 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who show up can help any way they want. As for the refs, it has nothing to do with the color of anything. I am talking about changing the referencing codes used from ones that have the referencing data seperated from what ir references to referencing codes (style) that allows the data to be next to what it references in the source yet shows up at the bottom during normal reading. This second style makes moving thing around easier. WAS 4.250 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Collaboration of the week 

message: I think the sentence "Most humans known to have become infected had a lot of physical contact with infected birds, or, rarely, an infected relative" should be reworded so it is clear that H5N1 is not (yet) human-to-human transmittable. Or in other words, a infected human cannot infect another human by e.g. sneezing at him. (Should H5N1 mutate to a strain that is Human-to-Human transmittable, things will become very ugly very fast - see Spanish Flu) CharonX 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We keep trying. What you see is our best effort to achieve the objective you indicated. Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at it? WAS 4.250 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Human to Human infection 

message: Avian influenza viruses have 10 genes on eight separate RNA molecules (called: PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NP, NA, M, and NS)?? Is this technically correct?? Avian influenza viruses have only 8 genes on 8 segments encoding  for 10 proteins. Some genes encode for 2 proteins using different reading frames. May be we can use the genetics part from Influenzavirus_A#Genetics. It is well written there. Also, isn't better to arrange genes(& their proteins) according to their actual arrangement on the segments i.e. first, Pb2 which is encoded by segment 1 then Pb1 encoded by segment 2 and so on? Please refer to Figure 2 and table 1 on  or . If there is no objection i'll rewrite it. --Wedian 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate as it stands, and the organization is functional. Please don't rewrite it. Please feel free to add sourced data. Maybe how "gene" can mean different things so some sources call it "10 genes" and others call it "8 genes"? WAS 4.250 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H5N1 virus structure 

message: Apparently User:WAS 4.250 has asserted ownership of this page, and I am not allowed to edit it, unless I make a full explanation here first. So, here goes:
This article's layout has several problems: 
#Wikipedia:Infobox templates states that infoboxes should be inserted at the top of the article, however in this article the infobox has been pushed down by an image, which creates confusion and pushes important information that we want readily available out of view.
#In order to put the infobox at the top, I moved the map to a different section.
#Image #1841 (the colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1) is displayed twice, once in the infobox, and once below. We only need to display this image once.
#Wikinews templates are typically placed at the end or beginning of an article, not in the middle. I moved this so it was directly under the infobox, a fairly standard position.  - - - unsigned by User:Hetar
#I don't "own" the page.
#I object to your gratuitous insult.
#I have as much a right to delete as you do to add.
#The issue is what is best for the article, not ownership.
#Insults are a poor way to begin a conversation.
#I believe the map belongs at the top regardless of what Wikipedia:Infobox templates says.
#We don't need to display an image twice but the image with the box doesn't have a description, so it's not the same thing twice. Do you have a better image for the box?
#The wikinews box was put where it seemed most applicable, although this is debateable. Why do you feel it is better placed somewhere else? Where it is "typically" placed is not relevant. What counts is what works best for this article, and maybe you can provide a fresh eye for that. WAS 4.250 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting my change without explanation, and then when I asked for a reason replying, "You changed MY work before I changed yours. Explain yourself on the talk page please." when I made changes to the whole article, implies that you own the article. Stipulating that I explain edits on the talk page before I make them implies ownership, you made that implication, not me. --Hetar 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but WP:CIVIL would seem to indicate that you should at least attempt to explain a wholesale revert of another editor's changes. --Hetar 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a reason behind this? Does the map provide more comprehensive info than the infobox? --Hetar 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The image is obviously of H5N1 - if readers need a more detailed explanation, they can simply click on the image. --Hetar 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, where it is typically placed is very relevant, because users who are looking for specific types of information (in this case news) will look there, and should be able to quickly and easily find it without having to read the whole article. --Hetar 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything in the infobox relates directly to the article's subject. It gives access to a broad range of information about H5N1 while the map provides a pretty image. --Hetar 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The image in the infobox is clickable - and again, there isn't any crucial information in its little caption. It's a natural reaction that if you want more info on an image, you click on it. One additional link for non-essential content is not a big deal, however a confusing/nonstandard layout is much worse.--Hetar 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia:Sister projects, "Links to sister projects are best placed in the actual section of the article that they relate to. (Such as, for examples: next to any discussion of quotations for a link to Wikiquote, or next to the event that they source for a link to Wikinews.) Otherwise, they are usually placed in the External links section (not the "See also" section)."  --Hetar 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Woah, I just moved the images around in my edit on April 3, 2006 because I remembered reading somewhere (I tried to find that page just know but I couldn't) that images should alternate left and right on the page to make it more interesting and easier to read, and also that way the images don't get all stacked up on the right the way they were. I didn't know this would cause such a problem :). In general, I think if there is no official guideline for whatever the problem is, then it's up to the individuals themselves to format the page the way they want. And we're all individuals, so remember, diff'rent strokes for different folks. If you like something one way, make it so. If somebody wants it more, then turn to him the other cheek, that's what I say :) J. Finkelstein 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: A reference was removed to this study suggesting that industrial poultry operations - not migrating birds - are the main vector for transmission of avian flu: 
http://grain.org/briefings/?id=194  
The Lancet (Vol 6, April 2006, in Leading Edge) has picked up the story and backs the GRAIN study. Here is some relevant, and important, text:
:Since mid-2005, the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO) and WHO have given wide prominence to the theory that migratory birds are carrying the H5N1 virus and infecting poultry fl ocks in areas that lie along their migratory route. Indeed, this is probably how the virus reached Europe. Unusually cold weather in the wetlands near the Black Sea, where the disease is now entrenched, drove migrating birds, notably swans, much further west than usual. But despite extensive testing of wild birds for the disease, scientists have only rarely identifi ed live birds carrying bird flu in a highly pathogenic form, suggesting these birds are not efficient vectors of the virus. Furthermore, the geographic spread of the disease does not correlate with migratory routes and seasons. The pattern of outbreaks follows major road and rail routes, not fl yways.
:Far more likely to be perpetuating the spread of the virus is the movement of poultry, poultry products, or infected material from poultry farms—eg, animal feed and manure. But this mode of transmission has been down-played by international agencies, who admit that migratory birds are an easy target since nobody is to blame. However, GRAIN, an international, non-governmental organisation that promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, recently launched a critical report titled Fowl play: the poultry industry’s central role in the bird fl u crisis. GRAIN points a finger at the transnational poultry industry as fuelling the epidemic. Over the years, large concentrations of (presumably stressed) birds have facilitated an increased affinity of the virus to chickens and other domestic poultry, with an increase in pathogenicity. Since the 1980s, the intensification of chicken production in eastern Asia has gained momentum, changing the whole dynamic of avian influenza viruses in the southern China epicentre, which has had far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world.
The Lancet story can be found here (subscription only): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/section?volume=6&issue=4§ion=Leading+Edge
Mackinaw 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to the H5N1 impact article in its Political sub-section. Feel free to add to it. Don't worry about proportions, as when and if it gets too big it can be split off into a seperate article. Just don't delete anything that is sourced. Feel free to spin it differently than I have, just try to be NPOV and always supply a neutral source or else clearly identify the source's biases. WAS 4.250 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The issue is a scientific one, not political (though it does have political implications). GRAIN comes from a political perspective, of course, but their evidence for their claims are scientific - ie studying infection routes, which correlate with transport networks (rail & road) and not migratory paths. If GRAIN is a political group, so they are POV; but when Lancet, a (perhaps the) leading global medical journal agree that the focus on migratory birds as a vector is probably spurious, then it would indicate an issue here more than just spin, but rather science. that is: what are the causes of the outbreak; and what are the vectors of transmission? I guess the wikipedia article does focus on both, so fair enough, but the issue of virus spreading routes (human transport networks and not migratory paths) seem to me of relvance in this article, not on the politics page. Mackinaw 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best scientific evidence is that migratory birds play a part but no one has data on whether it is a small or large part. Any statements saying to ignore the migratory bird transmission path is political not scientific, as there is no scientific data to back up such a claim. The spurious claim that "most" transmission is not migratory is beside the point since most transmission is within countries not between countries and the issue of world-wide spread is an issue of between borders and between continents. A migratory bird just needs to cross a border once and nonmigratory bird transmission can spread it from there. The migratory bird issue was about can we contain it to south east asia or not and with knowledge that wild ducks wee transmitting it , it was clear to scientists that it could not be contained, only delayed. They were right. WAS 4.250 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK makes sense. One point though - cross-border transmission *has* been linked to transport of domestic chickens, eg Nigerian imports of day-old chicks from China & Turkey (ref: same Lancet article).Mackinaw 16:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And not just live poultry. Check out Environmental survival at Transmission and infection of H5N1 and you'll see why everything from frozen chicken to chickenshit (or even things just contaminated with chickenshit) are potential sources of spread. Chickenfeathers from chickens that died weeks ago can carry live H5N1! Trucks must get their tires decomtaminated when moving from an H5N1 contaminated area. Also I read that some chicken farms' chickenshit is used as food for fish farms where migrating ducks frequent picking up the H5N1 from the shit (this example was from China, but other countries probably do this too). It's all interwoven and pointing a finger at one piece of the puzzle and saying ignore that piece is not helpful but is merely propaganda. WAS 4.250 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. though the worry is if there's not enough finger-pointing at major source of problems, which is propaganda of a different kind. but the wikipedia article seems to cover all bases, so that's not a worry here - though it does seem to be a problem in most media coverage. Mackinaw 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factory Farm v Migratory Birds as Vectors 

message: Hi, this article has a lot of potential but IMO the structure is problematic (I may have temporarily worsened this w/my edits from 4/10/06, sorry).  The article is not about flu viruses in general, orthomyxoviruses, other influenza pandemics, the Spanish flu, etc.  It is about a particular subtype of a virus, which is known to cause "bird flu" and which is considered a major pandemic threat.  The article should open with (1) what h5n1 is (a subtype of the species influenza A virus), (2) what the structure is (basic info about capsid, proteins, etc). (3) what it does (infect lots of birds everywhere and some people, (4) why it matters (global risk), and (5) what can be done (treatment & preparation).  That's my view, anyway.  I will make an effort to pare down the extraneous information, as long as consensus agrees with this.  Kaisershatner 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! WAS 4.250 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I think that's a pretty good first pass.  Expect some continued copyedits but I think the major structure is in better order now.  Kaisershatner 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that there are some structural problems with the article. I actually came across this article while looking at the featured article list, and is one of the points that I was going to raise before deciding to work a little on the article first (BTW, I don't feel that it is comprehensive enough to be a FA just yet, but it is almost there). I would suggest Reorganising the article structure so that the epidmiology of natural H5N1 infection comes just after the introduction. Within this subsection the prevalence of H5N1 infection in the wild, routes of transmission, cross-species transmission (including frequency, restriction factors and clinical outcome) can be discussed. Then we move on to virology of H5N1. Briefly, orthomyxoviruses, the genomic organsiation, phylogenetic clusters, reassortment and mutation, co-receptor usage and dynamics of viral replication may be discussed. Then we can go onto the immunological features which would include pathology and symptoms in both humans and birds. Cats and ferrets should also have a mention here as they are the prime animal model for invectigation of the virus. Then go onto the macroeconomic impact of the possible pandemic and the current situation. At the moment, there is substantial repitition within the article, which, I feel, is a result of the current structure. What do people think? --Bob 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course. I won't be implementing too much at one point, and I doubt I'll have time to do that much soon, but rest assured, I will read around the subject on Wikipedia like I did for the HIV and AIDS articles. --Bob 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the reassurance I was looking for. WAS 4.250 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural problems 

message: Congrats! —Encephalon 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: I haven't heard anything on the Bird Flu in quite some time on the news, and while it's obviously still out there, I was wondering if it simmered down a little or if people just lost interest in it? But being as the article says people are (the general public) 'stockpiling food stores' etc., makes me think this article is a little out of date; if it isn't, than it should at least reflect that many people have kind of put it out of their minds or something to that extent. This should be particularly important if it is being considered for Featured Status. - A.J. 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supply an unbiased source. WAS 4.250 00:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to date? 

message: At the moment there are a little too many direct quotations for my liking. These should be summarised and linked to. Ideas? --Bob 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He said, she said 

message: I have read many sites claiming that the bird flu is just a mass panic started by Roche to sell lots of medicine for high profits, there should be a section about these rumours too. Lapinmies 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the last section of this article and that section's main article H5N1 impact. Please provide encyclopedic sources for "mass panic started by Roche" so it can be added to H5N1 impact. WAS 4.250 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative. Lapinmies 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories