Avian Flu: The Next Great Pandemic Threat
“The pandemic clock is ticking, we just don’t know what time it is.”
– Ed Marcuse, 2003
The Forgotten Flu
In the spring of 1918, as the first great war of the modern age neared its close, a far more deadly adversary was just beginning its worldwide conquest. Stealthier than a German U-boat, the invading force circled the globe in a matter of months, leaving in its wake a level of carnage remarkable even against the novel horrors of the day. Even more surprising was the invisible agent behind this monumental assault: an influenza virus, blown into pandemic proportions.
Influenza carried much of the same benign implication in the years leading up to 1918 as it does today. Viewed with familiarity and little feared, the “flu” was accepted as a relatively harmless illness akin to the common cold – a serious threat only to infants, the elderly or infirmed. This perception drastically shifted with the outbreak of an especially virulent strain that came to be known as “Spanish flu.” The killer virus swept the world in less than a year, spreading along trade routes and rail lines and touching nearly every human population on earth.
Equally extraordinary was its unusual mortality pattern, discriminately targeting the young, healthy adults that seasonal influenza typically spares. Out of the massive number of those infected, an unlucky 2.5% suffered a gruesome fate. Sudden spells of fever and weakness rapidly progressed into agonizing pneumonia as the lungs hemorrhaged and the telltale blue tint of cyanosis set into the skin. Death often came quickly, sometimes just hours after the initial symptoms.
After the last wave of the pandemic ended in June of 1920, Spanish flu had claimed some 50 to 100 million lives with one-third of the global population falling ill. The United States alone lost an estimated 675,000 people – more than the total American casualties in every twentieth-century war combined. It was by a cruel and mysterious twist of fate that this plague, likely the worst in human history, emerged during the final stages of a bloody conflict that had already so deeply traumatized the world at large. Still reeling from the shock and hardship of four years at war, people had little chance to process the magnitude of the fleeting pandemic. It’s not difficult to understand why the survivors of these devastating events chose to look to the future, and to bury their memories of Spanish flu along with the dead. As the historian Alfred W. Crosby puts it, “as soon as the dying stopped, the forgetting began.”
“as soon as the dying stopped, the forgetting began.”
Today the great influenza of 1918 is a minor bullet point in the annals of history. Memorials to Pearl Harbor and memoirs of economic depression far overshadow the Spanish flu tragedy despite its enormous impact. Even amid threats of bioterrorism and climate chaos, it is hard to imagine a disaster more catastrophic than a pandemic, with its unique ability to afflict the whole of humanity at once. While infectious disease probably ranks low among the worries of most Americans, health experts agree that future pandemic events are a natural inevitability. There have been 10 influenza pandemics in the last 300 years, and three of these occurred in the last century: Spanish flu, the “Asian” flu of 1957 and “Hong Kong” flu in 1968. While far less severe than their infamous predecessor, the past two outbreaks caused significant social disruption and resulted in around 2.5 million deaths worldwide. And if history is any indication, as many experts fear, we are perilously overdue for another round.
The Next Great Pandemic Threat
In May of 1997, a three-year-old Hong Kong boy died from a flu-like respiratory illness later identified as a highly pathogenic strain of the avian influenza A virus. Classified by the subtype H5N1, this variation had previously been known only to infect birds, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of chickens in the area a few months earlier. By December, Hong Kong had reported an additional 17 cases of human H5N1 infection, five of which proved fatal.
The sudden leap across the species barrier meant that people had no protective immunity to the virus, a key factor in an emerging pandemic. With officials nervously monitoring the situation, the “bird flu” outbreak seemed to disappear. But in 2003, H5N1 resurfaced in Hong Kong in two confirmed human cases (one fatality), quickly spreading outwards to infect poultry across mainland China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. The next great pandemic threat had arrived.
Over the ensuing years H5N1 has continued to proliferate, taking hold in bird populations throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe. The virus is now considered endemic in many regions, despite efforts to eradicate it from domestic flocks. Especially hard hit have been developing countries like Viet Nam, Bangladesh and Indonesia where poultry farming is a vital means of subsistence for rural villagers. For every thousand birds that die from the flu, tens of thousands more are culled in desperate attempts to quash the runaway virus. The total number of culled poultry exceeds 150 million and continues to mount, placing significant economic stress on beleaguered farmers who aren’t always equitably compensated for their losses.
Most worrisome, however, is avian influenza’s occasional ability to infect people in close contact with diseased birds. By the current figures, there have been 382 confirmed cases of bird flu in humans in 14 countries. 241 of these resulted in death, for a Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) of 63% – an exceptionally high proportion, considering that the lethal Spanish flu’s CFR was just 2.5%. H5N1 displays a curious similarity to Spanish flu in its abnormally high fatality rate among young adults, leading researchers to speculate that the viruses share some unknown biological traits. Incidents of human contraction, while still rare, are on the rise and regularly appearing in new locations, suggesting a slow but persistent trend towards easier transmissibility between species.
As viruses go, influenza is especially prone to such mutations. This is why, for example, we are urged to get a newly updated shot each fall to ward off another year’s iteration of the seasonal flu. Flu viruses are constantly undergoing small genetic changes, mutating gradually according to a process called antigenic drift. As slight alterations build up in its surface proteins, a virus can develop new behavioral characteristics such as the potential to cause more severe illness or to afflict a wider range of species.
Alternately, entirely new subtypes can form through antigenic shift, a dramatic process of gene swapping, or reassortment, that takes place between two or more distinct viruses present in the same host. Both methods have likely led to pandemics in the past. Recent studies suggest the gradual emergence of Spanish flu through antigenic drift in the avian influenza virus H1N1, a scenario once thought impossible by virologists. Conventionally, pandemics have been understood as products of sudden genetic reassortment; the 1957 and 1968 outbreaks were themselves reassorted from H1N1 to create novel human influenza viruses.
In order for a virus to become a full-blown pandemic, three conditions must be met. First, the strain must be one that has never infected humans before (or that has dropped out of circulation) meaning everyone is potentially susceptible. The virus must then develop the ability to cause disease in humans. Finally, a mutation must take place to allow for easy transmission between people, as occurs with the seasonal flu. At present, the first two of these conditions are clearly evident in H5N1. The key mutation needed to launch bird flu to pandemic status could come at any time, through a series of subtle changes or an abrupt genetic reshuffling in any infected host. Some experts believe the current avian flu is following in the footsteps of Spanish flu, incrementally building up mutations on a path to global epidemic.
For researchers tracking H5N1, the situation has grown unbearably tense. The unabated spread of avian flu in poultry is a serious concern, as each back-and-forth transmission among animals could potentially give rise to a new strain perfectly suited for human illness. The vast numbers of both animals and people alive today provide unprecedented mutation opportunities for the unstable influenza virus. Carried by migratory ducks and swans, the disease has traveled long distances to crop up in once-unaffected Western Europe. H5N1-infected birds have recently been identified in urban areas of Bangladesh and South Korea, raising fears of widespread human infection. There is also evidence that the virus is becoming better adapted to infect mammals with reports oftigers, dogs, and domestic cats dying from avian flu. While it is possible that H5N1 will remain a threat only to chickens and their handlers, the virus seems to be inching ever closer to humankind.
Managing the World’s Health
Leading the fight against bird flu is the World Health Organization (WHO), a Geneva-based offshoot of the United Nations that plays a pivotal role in combating disease and setting global health policy. As reports of bird or human H5N1 cases arise, WHO researchers investigate the outbreak, collecting background information along with serum samples from infected hosts to determine if critical changes have taken place in the virus. Using this data, officials attempt to gauge the risk posed by avian influenza.
According to the agency’s six-phase Pandemic Alert System, the global bird flu situation is currently poised at phase 3, indicating “no or very limited human-to-human transmission.” A jump to a phase 4 alert would point to “evidence of increased human-to-human transmission” – a subtle difference, but a significant one in terms of perception of the current threat. Raising the alert status would likely precipitate immediate public concern, mobilizing governments and local communities around the world for an imminent pandemic. “Because of the huge consequences of such a change,” a 2005 press release explains, “WHO is following a cautious approach.”
The world has been locked in a phase 3 pandemic alert since January of 2004 despite a growing number of infection “clusters” which suggest that direct transmission of bird flu between humans may be taking place more readily. The most striking example of this came in May of 2006 when an Indonesian family of seven fell ill from avian flu in the largest cluster to date. Six people died, most of whom had no contact with poultry and likely contracted the disease from another family member. This rattled the nerves of many officials, particularly due to genetic clues hinting that the virus had passed between individuals and onto a third – a two-generation or “human-to-human-to-human” (H2H2H) chain that had never been seen before.
Following a flurry of attention surrounding the incident, WHO resisted calls to boost the pandemic alert citing insufficient evidence that the threat had advanced. Specific guidelines for raising the alert level don’t exist, leaving many experts wondering what must happen before WHO will take this critical step.
In a statement following the Indonesian report, Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), expressed concern over the ambiguity of the alert system:
“I’m personally confused about the difference in what a phase 3 and phase 4 alert level is. The WHO has not clearly described the difference. That’s important. I’m personally aware of a number of companies that have pegged certain levels of their pandemic flu plan on a change from phase 3 to phase 4.”
As the de facto authority on pandemic preparedness, it is understandable that WHO would be careful in making a judgment that could have dramatic worldwide effects, from reduced tourism to a global economic slump. An event from the recent past serves as a cautionary tale for policymakers weighing the ill-defined risk of an H5N1 pandemic: the U.S. “swine flu scare” of 1976.
The Swine Flu Factor
When a freshly mutated strain of influenza A linked to the dreaded Spanish flu killed a soldier at Fort Dix, New Jersey, officials feared a massive outbreak was at hand. Acting on the urgent recommendations of his health advisors, President Gerald Ford promptly announced plans for a nationwide immunization campaign during a televised address. It was a brash move (perhaps motivated by election-year politicking and pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists) but some regard it as an ethical and defensible action considering the potential consequences of an uncontrolled epidemic.
As it turned out, the swine flu threat never materialized and only resulted in the initial fatality. Instead, hundreds of people developed a rare nervous system disorder, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), shortly after receiving a dose of the hastily developed vaccine. The program was cut short in a wave of controversy following 25 GBS-related deaths, to the great embarrassment of all involved. Although there remains speculation as to whether the flu vaccine was truly at fault, the episode humbled the medical community and left a legacy of public distrust in government-sponsored health initiatives.
The lessons of the swine flu “fiasco” have doubtless informed WHO’s guarded approach to H5N1. But by all indications, the current situation is considerably more threatening. Whereas swine flu caused just a single death and infected only a handful of Americans, the avian virus circulating the globe has killed hundreds over the past five years, to the grave concern of health officials worldwide. Moreover, the entire notion of tracking an emerging pandemic is unprecedented; never before has a society seen one coming, let alone attempted to stop it.
In a May 2006 document, WHO acknowledges the dangerously uncharted territory it treads: “Given the unpredictable behaviour of influenza viruses, no one can know in advance whether the start of a pandemic will begin gradually … or be announced by a sudden explosion of cases, thereby precluding any attempt at containment.”
In this light, WHO officials might be viewed as overly cautious when faced with the tough decisions that could mitigate an H5N1 pandemic. The prominent bird flu blog Effect Measure has censured WHO for its reluctance to raise the alarm about ominous developments in the virus: “Admittedly this is a tough call for public health and there are two ways they can get it wrong: failure to warn when it turns out the warning was justified, or warning when it turns out otherwise. … If you are going to get it wrong, it is better to err on the side of precaution than the reverse.”
Other experts disagree, insisting that the agency is performing admirably under challenging circumstances. “I don’t think [WHO] are going to undersell this,” says Thomas Voss, Assistant Professor of Immunology and Microbiology at Tulane University. “If you go to Geneva and talk to the WHO, there’s not a person in the hallway who’s not concerned about pandemic flu. They are on top of this in a big way, and I think they’re fully invested in sounding the alarm when it needs to be sounded.”
Further controversy surrounds WHO’s position of withholding recovered genetic data from researchers in the public domain, thus obstructing the efforts of the greater scientific community – a stance Effect Measure denounces as "unconscionable.” Most recently, the agency caught flak for a series of retractions and conflicting reports on an H2H-suspected cluster of four persons in Pakistan. Initially reporting the cluster as a confirmed human-to-human event, WHO denied this claim just days after in a Reuters news release. Then a full three months later, WHO changed its story a third time, concluding that limited human-to-human transmission “likely” occurred after all.
Given the degree that this autonomous organization is entrusted with the world’s safety, these incidents raise troubling questions about the management of our global society. The demand for surveillance and communication grows as avian flu spreads to far-flung and remote areas, making control through a centralized authority increasingly difficult. Whether by negligence or sheer logistical overload, the probability for error climbs as new circumstances emerge. Certainly the world is better off with a powerful ally like WHO, but its blackout policy towards crucial data is only harmful. The stakes are high in the crusade against bird flu, and humanity risks much in the gamble.
Avian Flu Today
As a battle for the White House rages on, candidates from both parties are enthusiastically laying out their platforms on the major issues of the day: global warming, the economy, and the Iraq war, to name the top few. Yet in all the endless speeches and debates, none have addressed the looming specter of bird flu – a scenario that conceivably poses a greater national security threat than any subprime loan or terrorist cell.
If the rhetoric of politicians echoes the concerns of the people, it seems any fears of avian flu have faded from the public consciousness. Major media outlets abandoned the H5N1 story after an initial buzz, afraid of turning off audiences with persistent doomsaying about sick chickens in China. Experts worry that the world is “giving in to
bird flu fatigue,” complacently shrugging off the pandemic threat after years of fruitless warnings.
But unlike the public’s flighty attention span, the advance of avian flu has been tireless. First-time reports of H5N1 infection saw an alarming spike in 2006 with 19 new countries identifying the virus in dead or dying birds. Egypt has experienced a spate of 50 human cases since March of 2006, establishing a substantial bird flu presence on the resource-starved African continent. Most recently, the South Korean capital of Seoul ordered the culling of its entire poultry population – more than 15,000 chickens, turkeys, ducks, and pheasants – after H5N1-infected fowl were discovered in an open-air market. The massive cull was the latest in a series of slaughters across South Korea that has claimed some seven million birds in just over a month.
Countries affected by H5N1 as of June 2007 - Source: CDC.gov
Currently, the island nation of Indonesia is ground zero for pandemic flu with 133 confirmed human cases and 108 fatalities – more than any other country, and nearly half the total deaths worldwide. The conditions in Indonesia are dire; containment efforts have been a near-complete failure, and bird flu is now considered entrenched in all but 2 of the nation’s 33 provinces. To make matters worse, for the past year the Indonesian government has resisted international surveillance programs, withholding new isolates of the virus from WHO and US Navy scientists. Their defiance is in protest against the West’s dominance over medical technology and pharmaceuticals, arguing (justifiably so) that any vaccine produced from Indonesian bird flu samples would be priced out of reach of developing countries.
India recently joined
Indonesia’s blockade, announcing they will no longer share viruses with WHO until arrangements for affordable vaccines are made. Indonesian health minister Dr. Siti Supari raised the issue at the annual World Health Assembly in Geneva earlier this May, although nothing substantive was decided. Friction between Western authorities and the flu-stricken peoples of the East adds another layer of complexity to the bird flu predicament, as matters of culture, politics, and science collide under the darkening shadow of a global emergency. Without full cooperation and trust among the world’s leaders, what seems a nearly impossible feat – predicting and thwarting a pandemic disease – becomes even more so. But the issue raised by Indonesia’s stand is an important one. During a pandemic, one can rightly imagine that the inequities of society, globally and otherwise, will be suffered to their fullest extent.
The Pandemic Scenario
Based on historical accounts, experts anticipate an avian flu pandemic to last between one and three years as it travels the globe. Infection will roll through communities in waves of 6-8 weeks, repeating several times until the virus has run its course. The vast number of humans on the planet today, coupled with the rapid-fire global transportation of people and goods, creates a perfect storm for a virulent influenza to quickly reach all corners of the world. By the current estimates, a pandemic on par with the 1918 flu would claim over 142.2 million lives.
Treatment options could be extremely limited. Already overburdened hospitals would quickly overflow, and trained healthcare personnel would fall among the virus’s first victims. Since a sample of the active strain is needed to make a suitable vaccine, immunizations won’t be available for at least six months after a pandemic starts. Modern vaccine manufacturing methods still use technology from the 1950s to grow viruses in chicken eggs, a delicate and lengthy process. Even operating at maximum capacity, all of the world’s vaccine facilities can only produce enough doses for 350 million people annually – roughly 6% of the world population. If the virus circulating among people mutates at any point, the old shot may provide little protection.
Although new research to advance vaccine science is underway, some major obstacles remain. “A big challenge here is the need for industry to play a big role in this,” notes Voss. “The people who make those decisions at the [pharmaceutical] companies want to see a return on their investment. … Everybody’s trying to position themselves so they have the least amount of risk, and the sick people are right in the middle.”
Antiviral medicines, the next best pharmaceutical defense, would be equally limited in quantity and accessibility under pandemic conditions. Swiss pharma giant Roche holds the patent to the most promising of these drugs, Tamiflu, which it currently produces out of a single factory. When taken at the onset of flu symptoms, the drug could potentially slow the damage done by the virus and boost the chance of recovery, although results
against bird flu so far have been poor. Nations around the world began stocking up on the drug as fears of a pandemic mounted, earning windfall profits
for Roche. However several reports suggest new strains of H5N1 are already showing a resistance to Tamiflu, rendering strategic stockpiles potentially
useless. Furthermore, reports
from Japan linking the drug to 18 teenage deaths from “bizarre and self-destructive behavior” make the dubious treatment even less attractive. Medical solutions, it appears, are not likely to have much impact on pandemic influenza.
For those not immediately afflicted with disease, the pile-on effects of a crashing global society could be equally devastating. Absenteeism among workers in critical jobs such as power generation, communications, and border control could quickly lead to chaos as interdependent support systems fail and national security is compromised. President Bush suggested in 2005 that martial law might be instituted if avian flu broke out in the U.S., prompting much
criticism. In a recent statement, the ACLU
has expressed concerns that federal pandemic plans “rely heavily on a punitive approach and emphasize extreme measures such as quarantine and forced treatment.” The possible scenarios are endless, and the worst cases are ultimately bleak.
As both an infectious diseases expert and an official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Michael Osterholm is particularly qualified to speculate on life during pandemic influenza. As laid out in a
feature article for Foreign Affairs, his vision is chilling:
“In short order, the global economy would shut down … There would be major shortages in all countries of a wide range of commodities, including food, soap, paper, light bulbs, gasoline, parts for repairing military equipment and municipal water pumps, and medicines, including vaccines unrelated to the pandemic. Many industries not critical to survival – electronics, automobile, and clothing, for example – would suffer or even close. Activities that require close human contact – school, seeing movies in theaters, or eating at restaurants – would be avoided, maybe even banned.”
In a recent New Scientist article, Debora MacKenzie argues the complex structure of modern civilization makes it especially vulnerable to collapse during a severe pandemic. She echoes Osterholm’s fears that the “just-in-time” delivery system of global commerce, where small shipments of goods are made round the clock, could leave communities destitute within days of a world-stopping event. The frenzy of stockpiling likely to occur when panic sets in could clean a supermarket of its inventory in a matter of hours. But going a step further, MacKenzie believes the diverse network of key individuals that keep society running smoothly might be impossible to restore after a devastating pandemic. As one expert quoted in the article puts it, “people are the critical infrastructure.”
Think Globally, Prep Locally
Regardless of its shortfalls or successes, an international crusade against bird flu is only viable during the pre-pandemic stage. Once the virus mutates and begins to spread among humans, the scope of action becomes highly localized. The U.S. government has drawn up strategic
plans in case of pandemic influenza, addressing concerns of essential functions and public health. But many critics feel these efforts are shortsighted and increasingly under-prioritized, especially amidst the political distractions of an election year. Even those officials who show deep concern about pandemic influenza acknowledge that the massive scale of such an event – happening everywhere at once – would limit their ability to help most citizens. The message being handed down to the public is: “You’re on your own.”
Speaking to an assembly of hospital operators and emergency responders in 2006, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt was unequivocal on the matter:
“Any community that fails to prepare [for a bird flu pandemic], with the expectation that the federal government or, for that matter, even the state government will come to their rescue at the final moment will be tragically wrong.”
Each state, city, business, and institution is responsible for its own contingency plans, but there has been little uniformity of action across the country. Some analysts insist that the best response lies at the grassroots level of neighborhood and community planning. Based out of Nez Perce County, Idaho, a volunteer group called the Get Pandemic Ready Team has compiled an indispensable archive of preparedness advice for concerned citizens and local leaders. Visitors to their website GetPandemicReady.org can browse downloadable guides on topics ranging from water purification and food stockpiling to “Dealing with Death.” Initiatives like this encourage community-wide participation rather than go-it-alone survivalism, and serve as much-needed insurance against any disaster where government assistance is unlikely.
For those frustrated by the limited efforts of bureaucrats and the indifference of the general public, the Internet has provided a welcome home. A thriving online subculture has emerged around avian influenza with countless blogs, open-source databases, and heavily trafficked forums dedicated to helping individuals plan to weather a severe pandemic. One of the most popular resources is FluWiki, an exhaustive collection of user-created “diaries” that track H5N1 information, offer prepping tips, and help spread awareness of the pandemic threat. Another handy site is BirdFluBreakingNews.com, a minute-by-minute headline ticker of avian influenza happenings around the world, essential for the self-reliant flu watcher looking to get a jump on a potential global outbreak.
So … Will It Happen?
Among all the scientists, bloggers, and government leaders anxiously following the H5N1 virus, one question weighs on everyone’s mind: “Will avian flu go pandemic?”
Unfortunately, there’s no way to know the answer in advance. But all experts agree that even if H5N1 never fully mutates to humans, another pandemic flu of some kind will happen one day. As certain as hurricanes and earthquakes will continue to rock the earth, influenza will rise again.
In the case of bird flu, however, some important questions remain. Is the H5N1 virus on a path towards becoming a pandemic? And if so, could we see a repeat of the 1918 influenza event – or worse? Here, the opinions couldn’t be more different.
“It’s one thing to say there’ll be a pandemic,” cautions Voss. “But is there going to be a pandemic with mortality like what we saw in 1918? Probably not.” Even in developing countries, modern healthcare systems are “light years ahead of where they were in 1918,” he explains. “It’s a different world.”
Osterholm is less sanguine in his appraisal – and more certain. “The current national disaster response system will collapse in a minute,” he warned the crowd at a Rochester, Minnesota lecture earlier this May. “This is the one I know is going to happen, and I fear desperately that the world is going to wake up one day and be surprised.”
In the end, the debate – and the reaction – over avian flu may hinge on one’s disposition. Osterholm admits to being a “Chicken Little,” while Voss confesses, “I hate to be one of those doomsday people.” For those of us whose outlook lies somewhere in the middle, Voss offers some practical advice:
“First and foremost, get a flu shot every year. If there’s not a pandemic virus, it’ll protect you from the seasonal virus. If there is a pandemic, you might get some protection as well. And then, watch what is happening around you. If there are stories about poultry deaths, those are signs that there are viruses circulating in birds that may eventually make it to people – and some of those things make the news.”
Pandemics were once no different than tornadoes and earthquakes, catastrophic events which strike at random and with little warning. But at this unique moment in history, we are able for the first time to watch a potentially devastating natural disaster coiling up in the distance, poised to strike. Whether the next pandemic hits tomorrow or twenty years from now, it will eventually happen. When faced with an inevitable crisis, making preparations now is the only sensible action.
How to Prepare
(The following are a sample of recommendations from the InSTEDD manual, “Pandemic Influenza Preparation and Response: A Citizens Guide”. You can download the entire manual by clicking here, or from the attachment below.)
Household Stockpiling
- Store 1-3 months of non-perishable food for every family member. Choose foods that do not require refrigeration, preparation (including water), or cooking. Don’t forget pet foods.
- Store a one-month supply of fresh water for each family member. Plan to use 1-2 gallons of water per person per day.
- Ensure that you have necessary medical supplies if you have a chronic disease condition. Talk to your healthcare provider about obtaining an extra month’s supply of prescription medicines.
- Build a pandemic flu emergency kit containing disinfectants/chlorine bleach, water purification tablets, surgical masks and gloves, and pain relievers/cough medicine.
Healthy Habits and Virus Prevention
- Clean your hands frequently and thoroughly using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rubs.
- Cover your coughs and sneezes and ask others to do so as well.
- Keep living and work area surfaces clean.
- Practice social distancing techniques. Avoid crowds and public gatherings. If you or anyone in your home is ill, or if you may have been exposed to an ill person, stay at home and isolate yourself as much as possible.
Neighborhood/Community Efforts
Neighborhood organizations can help fill the gap left by an overwhelmed infrastructure. Highly desired volunteers include but are not limited to:
- Retired healthcare personnel
- Skilled laborers
- People who have recovered from previous infection with the circulating pandemic influenza strain.
- People with medical training.
- Mental health and spiritual counselors.
- People with disaster response training.
Here are some suggestions for the types of neighborhood volunteer roles that you might need. Meet with your neighbors and family, and talk about what would work best for you.
- Area leader
- Volunteer Recruiter and Coordinator
- Supplies Manager
- Medical Operations Manager
- Communications Leader
- Coroner Function
- Public Educator
- Mental Health Monitor
- Special Skills
Essential Resources
World Health Organization – Avian Influenza page:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/en/
U.S. Government avian flu and pandemic info:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Resources for Pandemic Flu:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/Pandemic/
Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:
Pandemic Readiness info:
http://www.getpandemicready.org/
Avian influenza database and forums:
Avian influenza global headlines, regularly updated:
http://www.birdflubreakingnews.com/
Michael Osterholm video presentation – “Pandemic Influenza: A Harbinger of Things to Come” (2005) (requires RealPlayer)
http://homepage.mac.com/forever.net/About/pandemicinfluenzavideo.html
Images by Instedd.org, aburt, Quiplash!, and bigbold, used under Creative Commons license.
Tweet| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| InSTEDD Influenza Manual (PDF) | 859.96 KB |
- 5-30-08
- ST Frequency's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Rumsfeld and Tamiflu
Indonesia and India's decision to withhold virus samples might seem surprising until one studies the privatization of health care, and the corporate monopolization of viruses that is allowed in the US system.
I just finished Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine", which is strongly recommended if you want to gain an understanding of the "disaster capitalism" that has become the practice of neoliberal/neoconservative government in the US. Massive catastrophes are now seen as potential profit-centers, and the biggest growth industries include private security companies that build new surveillance technologies, or guarantee protection to the wealthy.
When he became Sec of Defense, Donald Rumsfield broke all past precedent by refusing to give up his stock in a few highly profitable corporations that benefit directly from bad governance and potential catastrophe. One of these companies is Gilead, which makes Tamiflu, considered the only medicine that may have some effect if a birdflu pandemic hits us. Klein writes:
"Gilead, for its part, sees epidemics as a growth market, and it has an aggressive marketing campaign to encourage businesses and individuals to stockpile Tamiflu, just in case. Before he reentered government, Rumsfeld was so sure that he was on to a hot new industry that he helped found several private investment funds specializing in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. These companies are banking on an apocalyptic future of rampant disease, one in which governments are forced to buy, at top dollar, whatever lifesaving products the private sector has under patent."
Rumsfeld is estimated to be worth over $250 million. Tamiflu is under suspicion of causing a spate of recent deaths, and in a "growing number of reported cases, young people who took the drug became confused, paranoid, delusional and suicidal."
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
The Right Question...
What is going to keep you healthy is a balanced and strong immune system. Why in the above "Official" guidelines there is no talk about herbs, vitamins,super-foods,exercise, stress-management and meditation etc, that will help one deal with viral infections? What about our genetically tainted food supply and mad-cow disease causing farming techniques as a source of inter-species contamination? What about the history of proper sanitation and clean water as a extremely important defence against communicable diseases? The basic premise of Allopathic medicine is the study of Pathology as oppose to Holistic medicine which is Apithology , the study of the health and well-being of systems and of life.
In a related subject why is there a great legislative push to increase mandatory vaccination programs? http://tinyurl.com/64qrv6
Especially in the face of a raising concern for their harmful side effects? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6XQpJC9DI
In ancient Chinese medicine, Doctors were paid on a regular basis, as long as you were healthy. When you were sick they did not receive money. The opposite of medicine today. If that policy were implemented globally today, the health care industry would look very different. What is the financial incentive to keep a population healthy? For many it is more lucrative to maintain disease in the general population.
yes you are right
Hi Mark,
Yes, I agree with you entirely about supporting the health of the immune system. If you can send us a list of "herbs, vitamins,super-foods,exercise, stress-management and meditation etc, that will help one deal with viral infections" we can either add it to this piece or make it the subject of a subsequent piece.
I also loved your note about Chinese doctors only getting paid when their patients are healthy - great concept for many areas of life!
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Hi Daniel
I would love to write a bit about this subject. I have been thinking for a while how I could contribute to this fine website. I think a separate piece might be better so we could start to have on-line discussions/contribution by other knowledgeable folks in this community.Web 2.0 Baby!
Good points, Mark
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments.
I didn't come across any data that explored what factors kept people from contracting virulent influenzas, or dying from them. Demographics seems to play the biggest role. In most pandemics, the very young and very old are discriminately afflicted due to a weaker immune response. However one of the more troubling aspects of Spanish flu and H5N1 is an immunologic reaction called a cytokine storm, in which a healthy and strong immune system backfires by sending hordes of white blood cells in a sudden "storm" to attack the infection site – in this case the lungs.
This is a deeply disturbing situation for doctors and researchers, as it strikes down the most robust patients and there's not any effective treatment for this extreme condition. In light of this, what appears to best reduce casualties and one's chances for infection are social distancing methods, personal precautions and basic hygiene. Whether there are any meditatitve, herbal, or alternative practices that might provide protection, this has yet to be discovered -- surely such efforts can only help, in combination with primary precautions.
Another thing that is important to consider is that even in a mild pandemic, our globalized economy could be critically disrupted. Many of the pandemic preparedness recommendations focus on the shortage of food, medicines, and basic utilities that could follow.
I can only agree with you that there is something fundamentally wrong about our modern (American) healthcare system that is designed to profit from illness. Many other Western systems, including the UK's, provide incentives to doctors if their patients take steps to become more healthy. Obviously in a for-profit, sickness-driven system, a pandemic event would yield considerably more damage.
Regarding the vaccination business, this is a really deep subject that deserves its own exploration. The autism connections are fascinating in their own right, but the basic science of vaccination alone has been stagnant for more than 50 years due to a lack of financial interest to advance it. It's a big problem, again tied to profit-motivated healthcare.
-ST
Agreed...
It is not about a either or situation, as I wrote clean sanitation and water is extreamly important and as "Western" mindset as you can get. And there is nothing wrong with profits, as long as the first priority is health. But whatever one focuses on will lead to that reality.So if we focus on Pathology guess what we will have more of?
Vaccinations, indeed does need it's own exploration, but I do believe that they are a gross simplification of Homeopathic principles of like curing like.
A cats claw for a birds flu?
I've been reading a lot about Vilcacora/Una de Gato/Uncaria tormenosa lately - a vine from the amazon region with thousands of years of indigenous use. According to wikip: "A 2005 review of the scholarly literature on Cat's Claw indicates there is supporting evidence toward its use in treating cancer, inflammation, viral infection and vascular conditions, and for its use as an immunostimulant, antioxidant, antibacterial and CNS-related agent." Three cups a day of the bitter tea, taken half hour before meals.
Also, in response to the "disaster capitalism" of the pharmaceutical companies, it is interesting to bear in mind the concerns raised by some groups - "Ecologist" magazine for example - about the "Codex Alimentarius" commision, which apparently seeks to restrict traditional folk remedies, because they haven't yet been approved by science. A GoogleVid on the controversy here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&
I believe the reccomendations of the commission become law in the US next year. Should check that though. I wonder if there are any links to the Canadian bill, reported recently by RS: http://www.realitysandwich.com/unnatural_threat
O MY!
Insane! Alright!
What is the RS thesis? Seems very similar to a CIA think-tank sampling pool. Apparently to get people to talk about an advanced state of consciousness (typical "left types"), and also, evidently, a kind of agar-plate upon which to plant different forms of seed-spore and sit back as see what happens or who bears watching. Congratulations! Contribute here and enter the "experiment". Ah! but, then, I'm "paranoid".
Yet now we have a blind-man-CIA-pawn: Targ, talking to RS, and we have CE making a double-entendre piece, and we have people with topics all about, pretty much, rationalizing gaps in the common-folks' intelligence network in favor for coming to the forgone conclusion about why it is logical to NOT be involved or politically active or to be a "withdrawer". It means you are of a "higher consciousness!" Yeah. Right.
I'm giving up on this web-site. I find it very discouraging that such a potentially powerful web-site as this turns out to be prevelantly in favor of gobble-de-gook.
I was drawn here originally because I was sick of hearing Art Bell and his ilk talk about doom-and-gloom. I thought it was about independent thinking and a willingness to have freedom of thought and a willingness to be kind to one and another as a kind of goal in free exchange of thought. Instead, I see a trend to support illusions and superstitions. And woe be to you if you insult anyone's particular superstitions!
Self-faith, family-love, and neighborliness are the best and most powerful forms of life and health. Resort to drugs, resort to commercial avenues "back to self" are just lies. Period. Promulgation of fear, fear of anything is just promulgation of the primary thesis of this generation and much of the history of the external-faith form of philosophy. We have heard the following so often it has become almost meaningless, but it is the greatest truth: We have nothing to fear but fear itself. May I edit this?
We have nothing to fear. Period.
Fear and doubt limit our digestive juices. Perhaps you need some "science" to help believe this. By all means, do some reading about this. Use your "google", or did you never experience an upset stomach while worried or afraid?
What is more powerful: TNT or the pancreas?
Answer: the pancreas. The pancreas can digest things down to molecules and atoms. TNT only creates shrapnel. There is an abundance of "scientific" evidence the body can live without food or even air, and can transmute elements! But these things are set aside in our "education" as anomalies or illusions. One exception to the rule is the test of the universality of that so-called "rule".
Your body is the greatest lab in the universe. And it is up to each one to decide if this body is the result of consciousness or the producer of it. If the latter, then by all means, put all your faith in the "science" and be part of the experiment as subject...waiting for the results as to what to think.
I only ask this one thing: if consciousness, to be fully active, requires faith in it, what holds you back? Do you need another "controlled experiment"? But most people will sit on the fence and live in the grey world or part of that and so be really mixed-up. Be part of that with predictable mixed results, by all means.
I'd rather die from a chicken than BE a chicken.
The typical response to such an assertion will be: Well, nobody had any idea about the epidemics as to their science, no idea of germs, but the germs still killed them all! Really? And these same people will tell you that "natural cures" are mostly the "placebo-effect". So what is it? Is it really a cause and effect effect? Or just suggestion?
I can see the rationale of suggesting that the placebo effect is a weak method since, if it is a powerful effect, it means the death of the business built up on the lack of faith in self or lack of faith in faith itself! O my! That would mean a big problem with business built on self-doubt in the consumer-base! Yikes!
The connexion between consciousness and the body, between faith in consciousness and health is very intimately tied in with this so-called "placebo" effect.
Yet, every effort has been made to minimalize it, to associate it with strange cults like Christian Science, and religion in general.
Tests have been set up with every manner of "believers" with mixed results. Objective tests with atheists who yet have faith in health and "action-at-a-distance" by "positive" thinking have been carefully avoided. The atheist is the anathema of science, supposedly a non- religious approach on this issue.
Let's just drop this aspect for the moment. Let us just consider the simple act of self-confidence. We will even ignore the fact that some tests seem to show that people being prayed for are said to do worse than those who are left to themselves. Currently, we can call this an internet myth or "rumor". There is an abundance of evidence that people with the will to succeed despite all therapies resorted to do better than those who have surrendered to the "idea of their deaths". The dying will die, the living will live.
What about people without the ability to speak? I put it to you that what the people around them expect is a predictor and even an imposition upon these as to their fate. The doubters will the deaths of those people. It is social murder. Societally accepted murder called "hospice". Numbers matter. After all, who would want to live amongst such faithless types? I don't care what their supposed belief-systems are. I'm talking about faith in a person. In any person. Atheist or what have you.
I'm sure Jesus will comfort many "atheists" after they are murdered by such ignorance. While "religious" people believe in Jesus, how are they any different from people who believe in scientists and yet dis-believe in their own consciousness? Or how is it different from believing in Apollo or Aphrodite or what have you? And I'm sure the best digestor in the world is the one who has a fundemental faith in themselves, and they are also the ones who don't need an anti-biotic or toothpaste or tae-bo to be healthy and well while yet going through the motions for public approbations.
Whatever.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware
disappointed by your negativity
Hi Roger,
I am disappointed by your negative attitude in this comment. I would first of all say that since all of the writing on RS is voluntarily contributed, the easiest way you can add, augment, or change the nature of the discourse is by writing a feature for the site, which will then be commented upon by others, and lead to new avenues of thought.
It was my idea to have a piece on avian bird flu. I also believe in the power of consciousness and intention, and that faith can move mountains. However, it is good to bear in mind the Islamic proverb, "Have faith in God, but watch your camel." I believe that the community who passes through this website is best served by having deeper information on the most critical issues of our time, issues that are largely ignored in the mainstream media, and that threaten our immediate future.
We are not trying to create fear, but I think fear generally comes from not knowing about something. If you know the actual danger, you can prepare yourself in various ways (including sharpening your Dzogchen practice so no pandemic can penetrate your psychic shield).
A friend of mine has parents who work at a state university in NY - they have been doing secret trainings and preparations, in the event of a mass bird flu attack.
Without panicking or even worrying, i think we gain strength and consciousness by knowing what may be coming down the pike.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Good Article
I found the article to be comprehensive and factual. As the saying goes, "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst."
In the event of a pandemic, few really realize the extent to which we would all be affected. Informing people to be aware or prepared to deal with one does not make the source a fearmongerer. I much prefer to think of those sources as "realists" who are simply passing on the information.
The information leaking down from HS & FEMA is that there will be no assistance for communities in the event of a pandemic. There seems to be a sense not wanting to cause a panic amongst the population, but more a desire to get people to take personal responsibility for laying in a few supplies in case it should come to pass. Not really much different than laying in supplies to carry you and your family through any natural disaster, IMO.
http://www.drowningcreek.com
Pike's peak
I guess it isn't clear from the outset that anyone can present a 'thesis' paper so anyone can be subject to reactions like mine to this and other pieces.
I suppose I should say 'I'm sorry your were disappointed by my response' to this particular article, only, I have no idea what I wrote, since I tend to write in a drunken stupor while attempting to erase a consciousness of the stupidity of my fellow man. Yet I have to say SOMETHING while being cognisant of whatever stupidity gets into my limited sphere of awareness. I freely admit I'm pretty stupid, too. I don't 'know it all'. But when I smell a rat, I have to say so. Convince me of my wrong and I will repent. But not yet.
I do greatly appreciate criticism, personally. Only a smug bastard will think all detractors are 'idiots' and blithely go 'forward' while sinking into the grave. Let the wise tell their listeners 'WRONG', and explain why and precisely where.
So, short of writing a book, I prefer to just grouse and rant and complain and mock and outline or limn my personal perspective. Maybe somewhat to just seek to pique an angry response that will reveal what people really think. But my short response would simply be a response to a short summation of so-called reality here: fear mongering sponsers a 'science' to rationalize it. It seems logical, but it also contradicts certain and definite facts: to whit:
See Walter Last's web site: www.health-science-spirit.com
He wrote an enlightening article recently for Nexus magazine: www.nexusmagazine.com that pertains to my minor thesis in response to this article and what I see as a trend I perceive in this web-site in general recently. ...and by which I am somewhat surprised.
The major diseases for which we currently are given to believe access to vaccination as the "rationale" approach to prevent were actually practically disappearing when such modalities were generally available. Yet we are lead to believe that these interventions were responsible for their elimination or substantive control. It seems much more likely to me that the general media promulgated an IDEA that these interventions actually were doing the major work in their elimination, while in fact their participation was entirely minor and even insignificant. Walter Last details this in his paper.
Scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, rubella or measles had "declined by about 90 per cent by the time general vaccination was introduce for each disease."
I take the research of Rupert Sheldrake very seriously. And I also believe that concept delineated by Joseph Chilton Pearce in his classic work "Crack in the Cosmic Egg" is not only valid and supported by an abundance of evidence, I think it is the underlying thesis or principle of the original writer of the life of Jesus and is what was intended in these writings. It speaks to a form of iconoclastic attitude that, if applied in thought, word and act, would free the individual from all forms of fear and limitation. Without, at the same time, simply closing the mind by adoption of a mere dogma. Everything is fair game to doubt, to question, to have uncertainty about. The bottom line is indidivual potency and power to change the external display, the life. The experience.
Not just for the person, but for those associated. It is a community thing. A much wider form of "vaccination" that evolves from personal demonstration of a free principle available to all and not dependent on any single demonstrator or one living "the life".
But I can accomodate myself to the idea that there are so-called "sandhi" or "interfaces" that pertain and obtain between the actual accomplishment or proofs to oneself these things actually work and can change ones world and that of those around one.
A simple examination of the historical facts tell us that the greater the freedom of the natural world to balance itself, the greater the variety of life and sustainability of that life. E.O.Wilson almost single handedly proved that sustainability requires non-interference of artificial modalities of culture for life to continue.
We see in China perhaps the longest continuous application of artificial methods to provide food to a population than anywhere else on the globe. The mono-culturation of rice in association with use of human fecal matter as "fertilizer" and in forced confinement of animals to feed this burgeoning human-mediated "agar plate", perhaps again, an is merely an 'ancient' example of the dangers of artificial imposition of the limited understanding upon and against how life really wants to work and has worked for billions of years. The Far Eastern method is actually quite recent in terms of evolution and even human culture.
We are not imagining things in stating that the Far Eastern human presence and their methods of feeding themselves is a center from which viral culture burgeons and spreads. Something is wrong with this scenario. And yet most of the people exposed to this yet live. What are the gains versus the losses? How much of the gains are really to be attributed to mere "acclimitization" or acquired immunity and how much to mere "faith" that it can do no harm?
We have many checkable tales of Siddha in India eating all kinds of filth and not getting sick. And their demonstrations were apparently a kind of "vaccination" in the minds of the people around them that it was okay to drink the "filthy" water of the Ganges and/or live alright with what the West would call an entirely protein dificient dietary. And make no mention of the facts of people who have lived on nothing but air or living by mere "kechari" or the spit in their gullets. Interesting stuff.
Well, we could say, typical of Western entrenched doubt about consciousness as anything really important, that the mere numbers of people there makes such 'exceptions' still catestrophic if applied to our mere 300 millions. Fine. That is something to really research.
I appreciate very much the work of wilfriedsoddemann and I think it very worthwhile to investigate his research. It does remind me somewhat of the work of Hermann Fricke, who proposed at one time that viruses were actually exuded by the sun, since there seemed to be a close association between epidemic and "flu seasons" with sun-spot or sun activities. Fricke actually believed the sun was a giant "wasser ball" or composed of sea-water ignited to luminescence by its mass through gravity and that there was life inside the sun.
Perhaps, we might see in the micro-tubules of the cells and their connexions to the nucleous that virii are exportations of "messages" from human DNA! Viral blooms might represent merely human aggression against others!
Well, I prefer to test the message of Vashishtha and Jesus: all is only consiousness with infinite permutations and combinations but all, ultimately, resolvable to personal responsibility. "It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you sick, but what comes out of it, out of the heart." It is the will, the intent and faith. That faith may be wrongly applied. Misplaced. Faith doesn't just create good things. Faith can create catastrophe, too. "Woe unto me, that which I feared the most, has come upon me!" That's in yer Bible. Do I have to stop and find the place? I think it's Proverbs or maybe Job. And the antedote is there, too: I will see God in my flesh. I think Jesus took this literally. The recent revelations of the Siddha traditions of Kriya yoga and the Siddha traditions of Southern India, which antedate Aryuvedic medicine, substantiate this concept. Maybe it's all untrue. I think it worthy of enquiry. I think the doubts about science worthy, too, of being intertained as valid. And that is from someone raised in the scientific method. And all I have only partially delineated here, came about because of a willingness to entertain uncertainty as not something to be impugned.
One willing to sink pride in "knowledge" and received thoughts or systems of thought, can find. In this paper I see a trend to substantiate merely a theme of thinking that is endemic and dangerous, so I choose to put no faith in it. But not without reason. It isn't merely a "blind reaction" and mindless "negativity". I have good reason for castigating it.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unawar
Have no fear, but be aware.
While there is plenty of evidence for the factual status of belief and thought affecting health, I believe it to be a fallacy to extend this too far. First, double-blind placebo tests are routinely used to help differentiate this factor. Second, Native persons who have never contacted outside sources (like the Native American and Meso-Americans), it seems, would logically be immune to any disease they had not previously encountered and 'believed' to be a danger. Small children, with no concept of illness, still get sick and die.
So, in conclusion, from the evidence I would quote an old song that I find much truth in, however simply put:
There's a dark, and a troubled side of life,
But there's a bright and a sunny side too.
And though you will meet with the darkness
and strive,
the sunny side
you also may view.
So keep on the sunny side,
Always on the sunny side;
Keep on the sunny side of life.
It will brighten every day,
It will lighten all the way,
If you keep on the sunny side of life.
Keep on the sunny side, but know that you will occasionally strive with darkness. Hope for the best, plan for the worst...and always remember that the virus is also an entity of some level of consciousness, and it believes it exists -- even if you don't.
Also, check out Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber for a thought provoking look at this topic.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
How so?
The investigation into this issue is one of the great crimes of neglect in science and "professional medicne".
Like I've said before, issues concerning the role of consciousness as pertaining to all phases of biology have been carefully avoided due to a fear of approaching that great bugaboo of "first principles" that might despoil the prediliction to extol "science" as something fully formed. If you don't know how "something" can come from "nothing", there is a flaw in your reasoning. If both "something" and "nothing" are the same thing merely differentiated, then there is in this simple thought concept great grounds for research and exploration by any individual all on their own with no need for any outside authority. In other words, that you have no need for some authority to substantiate your own personal experience and experiment.
But perhaps you are speaking only from your direct personal experience with the extant literature of science. Or maybe even only popularizers expounding on what science says or "has found". As one popularizer is fond of saying "we physicists believe". Oh? Really? As if all physicists are in complete agreement? Nice illusion. Nice propaganda, even. But sorry, not so. It has never been so.
There is enough gaps in the body we call "science" to permit all manner of people to say on one hand: 'evolution' is unproved. On the other, that evolution is not, and even CANNOT be disproved at this point in time.
The thesis of the creationists is always slanted to make us believe that some particular individual person is behind all creation and all we have to do is accept this thesis (theistic hypothesis) and we will behold all things clearly. The thesis of the materialist is that life can appear magically from non-life, because their first principle is that matter and energy are conserved and their permutations represent all there is. So how can one escape the conclusion that "life" or consciousness is not a spontaneous creation or product of magic?
In terms of evolution, it is entirely conceivable that all things are merely permutations of consciousness, and we need not tire our puny brains by simple linear diagramatic plans attempting to resolve how or why it must be so. It is no more impossible than the other hypotheses, but possibly more fruitful.
Let us just assume that definite laws apply to or inhere in consciousness itself, which consciousness itself is incapable of escaping. It might be subject to mathematical sums and cancellations such that it proposes equations and perforce anti-equations are developed to test their validity. Then we could see resultants that grow like crystals from seed and some patterns go on for a time, and others go on for greater times or lessor times or extensions.
The results of such thought can bring one to the compulsory concept of "dimensional mathematics", in which a sensory principle seeks escapes, developes modes to escape limitations, and so simulatneous solutions that would be utterly contradictory when applied to only one plane can have validity on other levels, or what we might call "shear" zones.
Anyone who has given this type of thought any time with some concept that includes one's awareness as primal and capable of being simple, not fully formed, can see that there is a difference between consciousness as substrate and consciousness with self-cognisance as a growing force. At that point, all is a battle of "belief" systems, or what can the motivating center get away with by suggestion. Such a programme would rely on suppression of information on purely mathematical grounds alone to succeed. It is inherent in the very idea of politick and external rule. It is also a convenience, and it makes sense to me that life units would accede to such on the basis of conservation of energy. Until the results become onerus. The curve is evidently bending that way currently. And those who keep statistics and actuary tables and watch trends are fearful because of the spontaneous objection to the imposition of this principle of external controls is going too far. Pressing down on the internal thing we call our "soul". The "God" principle if you will.
We will have none of it. Why should we? If all are one and the same principle expressing and differentiating in all directions, why should we accede to any external impositions?
So I have delineated in only a very minor way the reasoning behind a universal revolution against compulsion, and towards a faith in ones own intelligence. That it is all power and substance. The modern scientist will tell you merely "one" exception is not sufficient to satisfy the criterion. Yet they cannot explain the exceptions. They will insist upon repeated "controlled" "double blinded" experiments and all manner of means to slow a progressive movement that is evidently beyond their control.
The funding of centers of such "science" receive funding amenable to political ends, but not necessarily polarized to facts. The world should have, by now, benifitted by recognition of the principle underlying "homeopathics", whereby evidence showed "nothing" had physiological effects. Noted prominently, then quietly ignored. Imagine that!
Why? Perhaps due to extension of the reasoning that would impinge on the gross drug industry. "Lack of faith" by mass-producers of drugs. But don't worry. They are subtly buying up concerns that promote such "natural" "remedies", despite the fact the fact they work presages the elimination of all dependence on commercial product. One day, people will see the ideal of "food" is only one step away from the realization of food, and the infinite variety of reality involved in just having faith in one's own consciousness. This is something immediately available, definitely a threat to those dependent on the material principle. I guess we will eventually have to come up with some other motive than money or profit to occupy our "problem". What is that? Consciousness is the problem. Problem and solution. As long as we are amenable to love. =========== Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unawar
Fear and knowledge...
Hi Roger,
I appreciate the different perspectives you've been raising in your comments. I encourage you to take up Daniel on his offer and write some of your thoughts up into a feature for Reality Sandwich.
I can understand your resistance to what I've presented here. It's certainly not a cheerful subject. I completed this piece as an assignment, and I have to admit, researching it took a lot out of me. I wasn't comfortable simply parroting what some journalists are saying about H5N1, as the outlook in many reports is incredibly grim. I spent a couple of sleepless nights where I considered walking away from the subject, worried that I was contributing to a negative psychic potentiality just by thinking on it.
In the end, I decided to continue on, but to study the avian flu situation thoroughly – to be personally confident I wasn't misrepresenting the facts or missing an important angle when such serious conclusions were at stake. By the open-minded, inquisitive, and discerning nature of the Reality Sandwich readership, I imagined this information would be regarded as suspicious by some, and as pernicious by others. In presenting it, then, I tried consciously to avoid a fearful "gloom-and-doom" analysis while still conveying the gravity of the material.
I agree with you that the Western practice of medicine is an inexact, incomplete science. There is certainly much from our regular discourse here at RS that needs desperately to be integrated into the Western paradigm of health and biology. But I spent a long while going over the avain flu information, and my conclusion is that it is something everyone should be aware of. Influenza pandemics have occurred regularly throughout recorded human existence -- this isn't a "theoretical," never-before-seen danger like greenhouse-effect global warming, but a recurring natural event with numerous historical precedents.
Yet now we face a unique situation: in our current age of ballooning populations and "peak everything," the next pandemic flu -- whether mild or severe, H5N1 or something else -- could have enormous knock-on effects outside of illness and mortality. Our tenuous global economy puts us in a very perilous position when facing a disaster of any kind, so an event that affects the entire world at once is very worthy of our attention. Rather than growing fearful or panicked, I hope people will find the data I've compiled informative and helpful.
Regards,
ST
Spread of avian flu by drinking water:
Curmugeonry
It reminds one of Khayyam:
The moving finger writes; and having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
Edward Fitzgerald's(1809-1883),
translation of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, stanza 71 (1859).
But as to our expressions and what we can do to correct our paths, in simply watching nature, I come away with an admiration that beggars words.... and I include the beauty of a woman and a man in that nature which, when left alone, asserts a tendancy to conquer all difficulties in perfect silence and a shrug or perhaps it is a kind of resigned smile. What I mean is that many machinations we engage in are perhaps better left to thought experiments, rather than chisled on steles. I quote a local poet:
I scratched some words on the side of a mountain, and never were there ever words more wasted than as what sand was washed away.
Day Scott Cathey, Opus VI, ~1973.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were u
BIRD-FLU?
Made in an American Lab Flu might be a better or at least more accurate title. Enjoy the paranoia while it lasts. Chemtrails....whats that?.
"It is necessary that the prince should know how to color his nature well, and how to be a hypocrite and dissembler. For men are so simple, and yield so much to immediate necessity, that the deceiver will never lack dupes."-- Machiavelli - "The Prince" (1513)
Supporting the health of the immune system
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Zorro's great detail
The Siddha tell us to cultivate the attitude of childhood, to smile, to shrug, and to be immune to the ups and downs of the world experience.
Perhaps the exacting detail Zorro gives us can help explain why different plagues killed many while others were evidently immune.
Instead of looking at merely physical systems related to the endocrine system, the different organ systems, and posture or what have you, we looked at attitude more closely, we might spend more money looking at the healthy and try to understand that rather than diseases and how the debilitated die. There is a big gap there.
Zorro has given a very valuable enumeration that is half-way between physiology and attitude.
We can derive from this listing that all the positive and all the negative attitudes are somehow focused into definite and specific organ systems.
So, does this mean we would be wise in imposing our hit-and-miss attitudes into our bodies? Does this mean it is wise to start competing with our autonomic systems?
My reading of the Siddha system is that attitude and expression or behaviour emanates a force that merely permits the natural expression of immortality. If the Siddha system says anything, it is that it is our job to merely relax with faith in the "inner Ruler Immortal" or Atman (read "God" or "I AM" or "Yahweh") and be kind, happy and confident....the power of "smile, be confident, be happy". Or as one Yogin said: "Don't worry, be happy".
What a challenge! We could go with that, and find our health followed suit. Instead, many of us feel we need some theoretical system or speculative basis to satisfy the intellectual or doubting aspect of our minds.
This is what we may term the "inner adversary". This is also the basis of the so-called "need" for a "guru", one who will tell us that our thinking processes are just so much BS, or "stiff-necked-ness". It is the imperitive of the egomaniacal: I AM GOD, nobody else... and yet this one cannot save him or herself.
When one relaxes into the idea that GOOD is all, all ARE GOD and need no outside savior, that one begins a journey into a form of confidence and hopefulness and positive attitude that not only saves much labor, but practically and really eliminates interference in the lives of others.
Summary: be still. Smile, shrug, and keep going. Keep on keeping on.
It is always a great temptation to rush. To run, when no one is chasing. And the infinite power of the adversary, the mind, will manifest a chaser....then we say: "SEE!? I told ya' I was being chased!"
Do we really need to impose our outer mind into our bodies, and take such great pains to educate it? I recall the message of Luther Burbank, who considered us as thinking plants. Maybe. Maybe we do need such exacting detail, and exercizes. Maybe some particular type of man or woman will need such. In general, I am of the opinion that what really is effective is removal of a received kind of "atheism".
This "atheism" is about our own consciousness. We refuse to see NO difference between that part of us that thinks thoughts in terms of verbal constructs, and what leads us in an unitive kind of way wherein feeling, or loving emotion and intuition or insight --- the visual stuff of the inner eye --- and the natural desire to create and make the world more beautiful and happy place. But our verbal constructs are mostly received from the outer world. The inner impulse towards happier results is our inner voice, the ideal one or ourselves.
We fight this impulse, and mistakenly call that positive voice our "adversary", rather than our contorted sysem of ideas or material modes and associated thoughts based on mere emergency and exigensies.
So I very much respect what Zorro has delineated here, because he or she has shown an association between attitude and physical reaction and expressed realities, both positive and negative. That's real wisdom, if we are willing to take the time to absorb it.
It boils down to: are we able to slow our minds down, and to exert the "reins", so to speak, and be still and really choose one way over another?
Do you recall the logo of theatre? The two masks? One smiling, one frowning? Each moment challenges us to use the appropriate mask. The third alternative is that we should just be stoney faced, immobile, and not give a damn and wait for 'nirvanna'. Well, that pretty much sums up the gamut of personality types I guess.
Faith in the inner self asks of us to stop and listen. Wait. Stand still and see the salvation that I AM within you can give you. If you rush off, and seek without, it means something else. The sequalae is imposed by the chosen dynamic. Live and learn.
I still think the best advice is "turn within", which is what Jesus taught, modernly interpreted as "repent". That latter misinterpretation is the biggest mistake of modern thought. Many people have "repented" of trusting the inner voice, and ended up repenting of that, too. They merely delayed what was local, potent and effective. Why is it so hard to respect this? It is the very innermost of all. I could delineate many examples of people who trusted in that and who were persecuted for it, but proven right in the end. It is the epitomy of "heroism" and nobility of character. It is the essense of faith. Something unseen by the eyes, but which fills the soul. It is meat indeed, and drink indeed. It is light, warmth and happiness when obeyed and communed with and cooperated with. As something common, and with all knowledge and lacking nothing. We are one, it is infinite. The ratio between represents unlimited growth and all hope, because there really is no possibility of a fraction between All and one. So it is always possible that someone will come along and do us one better. Istn't that great? What else does it mean: All that I do you will do, and greater things. Not just an honest statement, but a factual statement on theoretical grounds alone. That's all I advocate. Believe in yourself.
=========== Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unawar
the victims
ST: Fear and Knowledge
In keeping with a Kahuna tradition or mythology: someone sees a bad thing coming, another sees that it doesn't come to pass. It is a little different from the Boy Scout approach of simply just: "be prepared".
My 'two cents' is about balancing the ledger, not that input on the other side of the ledger should be left out or ignored.
I'm cognisant of the need for every "estimate of the situation". We are all obliged, still, to look for bias in the reportage, whether that bias is conscious or unconscious.
I like your writing and really appreciate your personal struggle in taking on the job of delineating so many pertinent facts surrounding this truly complicated issue and the inherant dichotomies that appertain thereto.
So in approaching this issue, I, too, see the difficulties in giving "just the facts ma'am, just the facts".
There are some phrases with which I would have taken more time to craft in order to avoid any "aura" of "doom and gloom":
"And if history is any indication, as many experts fear, we are perilously overdue for another round."
That is, evidently, to say: another world-wide catastrophic epidemic. Right? Or what? So who chose to say "perilously"?
I realize that this is one of those sentences we might call a logical parameter and doesn't blatantly posit some positive assertion but it IS suggestive and the casual reader will take that and run with it internally and emotionally and give power to it.
To cognisantly say "no" would demand of the "nay-sayer" some grounds for so maintaining. I realize that some solution was not the thesis of your piece. Your reply to me suggests you are wondering about what am I objecting to?
The answer is in the propositions as you phrased them: as whether to fear or to fear not. Sounded more like fear to me. That's all.
That's a choice I'm talking about, and it isn't just a matter of mere blind-faith. But pertains to real physiological outcomes under the influence of fear or confidence.
Expectation is not simply a static state of awareness but a creative act. Then we get into "odds" and statistics and we have that razors edge between 'what will be?' despite our thinking and 'what will be?' BECAUSE of our thinking. The Schrodinger's cat thing, or "Jacob's Ladder" thing: we bring forth what we gaze upon . . . with expectation and faith or belief. Faith is a two-edged sword. And I have iterated and re-iterated elsewhere that for me "faith" doesn't devolve upon some anthropomorphic concept. It is internal, universal, as much the property of an amoeba or perhaps even a rock as a two, four or x-numbered legged being. Implicate order, as Bohm posited it, something each of us is unfolding.
I grant that there is far too little research that will fully quantify this thing and satisfy the terminally doubtful materialist. Still, I welcome the challenge posed by the materialistic ideation or paradigm because it forces thinkers to fully outline the whys and wherefores and show that truths doen't compell something external to anyones own inner principle or even ego. Truths are like water. If we aren't thirsty, we don't drink. What is the criterion for creating thirst? Things as they are, or things as they might be, or could be? Instead we are ever in danger of rationalizing a definite philosophy of pessimism and "pragmatics" that are little more than apologetics that when carried forward bring about bad things which we affirm and to which we say "amen". We seal the deal. False as it is.
The left and right side of the ledger about this particular issue of cause and effect and the real roots of disease and health has both threatened and stimulated financial concerns all over the world. The medical-industrial complex (MIC) has seen people running left and right after "alternatives" and now we see the MIC trying to grab a piece of that "market" if not take it over en toto as witnessed by the European Union's attempts to limit accesss to vitamins and minerals and herbs and now Canada's C-51 measure which will do about the same things.
Not that I'm personally adovcating a willy-nilly faith in vitamins and minerals and herbs as the be-all and end-all of health. Rather, my principle is the same as ever: it isn't what goes into your mouth that makes you ill, but what comes out of it: concepts held in the heart and mind, and that the body is the outpicturing of the very real fact of a self truly "above it all" and immune to all problems if permitted to express. We have seen enough exceptions to the "rule" about this to negate any universal rule about what makes us live on physiologically. There is something missing in our first principles.
On the other hand, we can impose upon that principle our negation and our negative expectations. Then we'll ask: How could 'God' allow such a thing? That's where I switch the old adage to say: God proposes, man disposes, rather than that man proposes, and God throws out. We are already in this mortal concept thinking that our desire for health is something we are proposing, but the principle of health is something constantly flowing forth. We negate it.
It is analogous to the path of an arrow. At the hand on the bow, the ultimate deviation is born. Not even there. In the inner eye, the objective is seen hit already or missed already. We bring forth what we gaze upon. Or 'that which I most feared has come upon me'. That's a form of worship. I say 'careful', maintain a grain of salt for all but the ideal.
If we really wished to express immortality, wouldn't it be logical to take 'mortal hands' off? We can't go and stay at once. We have to live by our principles. Today, there is much furor going on about people who refuse to vaccinate their children, and that comes of a little more than a few motives or rationales I won't attempt to outline here. The point is that in some ways we are being asked to believe in something which brings about a potential compulsion and thereby forced coercion into a thought process. Well, by my own admission, this can't really happen, since it is entirely symbollic. It doesn't matter if I get a vaccine or don't. My option, my choice to so conceive and bear the fruit.
But the world at large has little conception about these potencies within the concept lived in ever growing detail. It is evidently not news-worthy. Research is so sparse about this. Yet so needed. Certain ethical principles prevent any large scale experimentation, as I'm sure of which you are aware.
People are working to get it moving forward, however, but funding is sparse. So the world really must rely on word of mouth and anecdotal material. Yet there is a vast amount of clinical-type and double blind type research that supports this, and I refer people to the relevant experts as to this, and append some suggestive sites for further information at the end of this.
We are exposed to viruses with every breath. The first defenses against such things is not simply the highly complex "specific" immune system, but the digestive system, which is highly general and highly effective. Digestive enzymes are more potent than dynamite, being able to reduce things to a molecular and atomic level. And we know that mental states of depression don't just make us outwardly sad, but diminish the effectiveness of these enzymes.
Viruses are nothing but proteins, sugars and genetic stuff. All subject to every enzyme we possess in our mouths, stomachs and pancreases. The pancreas secretes enzymes to digest almost everything: proteins (proteases), carbs (amylases, glycogenases, maltase) fats (lipase) and genetic stuff (RNase). And we have not fully delineated the spectrum of enzymes produced in the human body, by any means.
Ninety-seven and a half percent of people infected with the Spanish flu, according to your own details, lived. Granted, the death-toll was great.
Is this a delineation of the failure of the immuno-enzyme system or a delineation of the power of fear and lack of faith in the body? Fear propogated, possible to some extent by HEADLINE: MORE DEATHS!
We see this tactic used as editorialism when important stories are buried several pages in and with minimilist headings.
In terms of the statement:
"By the current figures, there have been 382 confirmed cases of bird flu in humans in 14 countries. 241 of these resulted in death, for a Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) of 63% – an exceptionally high proportion, considering that the lethal Spanish flu’s CFR was just 2.5%."
That is not a fair statement, since it doesn't compare CFR for Spanish flu at the equivalent period of observation.
Is it not true that the original infection rate for Spanish flu with resultant fatality was also very high? As it spread and the totals were tallied, the spike "softened".
So we are talking about sum total fatality in Spanish Flu, not the original fatality spikes.
So the proposition put forth or quoted there is, in my view, asking us to extrapolate and feel fear and I think potentially can lead some to think: MY GAWD! WE'RE ALL (or many many) GONNA DIE! if this trend continues. Think the proposition needs closer examination.
Take "anthrax". It is present in soils universally. We dig, and we breath anthrax. We see a very small number of instances where such spores culminate in human mortality. So small as to be almost meaningless . . . unless amplified by media. The highly purified and concentrated or "military-industrial" versions of such are what most people became aware of following the attacks Sept. 11, 2001.
These so-called "weapons of mass destruction" seem to have been produced in the US, and used as a way to stoke a National Fear Campaign, which is what I suspect it could have been. But, who knows, it might have just been some mad-person's personal vendetta masked within a furor of paranoia about terrorists and terrorism.
Forgive me for redundancy, but when will we begin to see thoughts and words as such weapons when unwisely wielded and propogated?
Again. I am not accusing you of such, and don't see in your piece any diabolical intent. At the same time, if I see in it a trend I feel impelled to stand against on principle, it is not personal, just my felt general obligation to say: I see another way to look at these things, and don't think anyone need feel any logical obligation to buy into forgone conclusions either. There are good grounds for investigating a philosphy of inconcern about so called natural threats, while at the same time not being intentionally blind to any and/or all threats. It would be interesting to look at the medical people who investigated say malaria or leprosy, ebola and with their typical egoistic or "professional" unconcern, and see how to explain the relatively low numbers of succumbing to the diseases they were studying with daily contact and exposure.
Some resources:
Joseph Chilton Pearce:
http://www.appliedmeditation.org/The_Heart/articles_joseph_chilton_pearc...
Rupert Sheldrake:
http://www.sheldrake.org/
Physicist David Bohm:
http://www.david-bohm.net/
A good overview about "epidemics":
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/281/1/61.pdf
High strangeness about "immunity":
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E3DF153CF934A1575AC0A...
Tilden's views about the "illusions" concerning "infectious diseases" (I don't necessarily agree with all he says, still worth knowing about:)
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020103toxemia/02010301.htm...
Another source of alternative ideas about all this (same adviso as above:)
"Theories of science must be judged on the basis of facts and reasoning, and not by the authority of dogma." Thomas Huxley 1860
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/articles.html
A little on Enzymes: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html
More on enzymes:
www.navi.net/~rsc/iet_txt.html
Maybe the following paper has some data on effects of fear on enzyme expression and effectiveness, not sure:
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, Volume 78, Issue 1, May 2004, Pages 155-164
Many more links are under preparation.
All grammatical errors my fault. No spell check! Ancient equipment!
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware.
The RS paradox...
Hi Roger,
In this recent comment I do see exactly where you are coming from, and I welcome the alternate perspective. You are correct that my writing here leans more towards perceiving the pandemic threat rather than painting it benignly.
Based on my research, I felt that there was enough evidence to warrant some degree of concern, and furthermore, it appeared that most people had no clue of even the recent history of pandemic influenza. As a journalist, you have to weigh all the data surrounding a topic and ultimately decide in what way you will present the facts of the story. This is hopefully less a bias and more an "angle" – a fine distinction. The great challenge is to do this ethically without manipulating the facts to fit your conclusions.
You mention one point that I will admit could have been better explained, where I compare Case Fatality Ratios of Spanish flu against current mortality stats for H5N1. Other reports making this comparison sometimes note that there is the chance the avian virus could become much less virulent after it mutates into a pandemic. However, these reports typically follow, the 63% CFR is a pretty high starting point, and even if it drops all the way to Spanish flu mortality levels (2.5%) society would still be affected in tremendous ways.
I recall that I omitted this detail in favor of succinctness for what was becoming a lengthy piece. From your reply, I can see how it helps to color the argument a certain way, but this is only one of many facts I put forth which indicate the gravity of the H5N1 situation. To be honest, I don't think adding the clarification lessens the severity of the problems we face, given all the contributing factors (unprecedented human/animal population numbers, rapid worldwide travel, fragile global economy, etc). In either case, bird flu is something people need to be aware of, and in most places it is simply not being discussed in frank enough terms to make the point.
I also made sure to close the piece with a nod to the varying degrees of caution coming from scientists studying H5N1. This was included to address those in the RS community who, like yourself, espouse an alternate manner of defining health and disease. In the end, as we are seeing in these comments, the way a person will interpret and interact with this information sometimes seems to hinge upon a deeper philosophical disposition.
What I see arising in the opposition of our views is a dichotomy that continues to crop up in our discussions here at Reality Sandwich – that is, a debate between the materialist, scientific perspective and the consciousness-driven, immaterialist view. I hold both as valid and interwoven, as it seems you do as well. However, the angle from which we are both observing this topic is skewed differently across the intellectual divide.
You suggest that harboring fears of a flu pandemic might render one's own body vulnerable to illness – or, that consciousness of a specific threat may bring that threat into existence. I argue that the threat exists, unbeknownst to most people, and that consciousness of the threat may aid them in preparing and coping with it – whereas ignorance of it, while blissful, could prove more harmful.
Neither viewpoint is necessarily incorrect, and neither moot, yet it certainly feels paradoxical to embrace them both. This was my own conundrum grappling with this information, and I am glad for your opposition, which brought these concerns out and into the dialog – something I couldn't fathom how to address in the original article. Please do write that feature for us!
Cheers,
ST
You're right: interwoven and paradoxical
Thank you for your reply. And I was thinking how much I didn't envy you taking on this article, but am very glad you wrote it. I do view it as a necessary and important piece, something I'll keep at hand in my files. It is information rich and that, for me, is invaluable.
At different points of my own research into this issue, I've often thought about something mentioned by a novelist about her Chinese-American family, and how keeping a fire-extinguisher was seen as a kind of presage of its need, and so they carefully avoided them. I would hope they were equally careful not to start any fires in uncontrolled ways. So I do appreciate the dichotomy of this and am, along with you, painfully aware it isn't a simple question easily fathomed or easily expressed by any one person or any one article. This web-logue process is a form of co-operation and co-writing so that we are feeling out the true shape of the elephant in the room rather than seeing merely a hairy tail or an ivory tusk....and that's it. As if. Not likely. All reports, all angles at once, shared, is scientific method. As long as we resist the impulse to come to some adamantine conclusion and no room for further detail or criticism.
Again: Thank you. An outline is in preparation.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware.
Peculiar Viral Traits
A couple of fascinating notes on influenza viruses I picked up from Michael Osterholm's lecture, linked in my article (a must-watch video):
Nearly all human influenza viruses originated in Chinese aquatic birds... an odd fact.
Another stranger fact -- whenever a pandemic virus has run its course, it remains within the human population as a much less virulent, comparatively harmless flu. However, as soon as the next influenza pandemic emerges – through some random mutation event – the previous virus suddenly disappears from the earth. This is completely bizarre, inexplicable -- as if the laws of virology operate according to some mysterious pattern. There's much more going on with these organisms, and their purpose, than we are yet aware of.
My Outline
I don't think we can sit back and just egoistically conclude that virus are some "outside" enemy, or provide some scattered reading material for speculation that the "Chinese" or the "Far East" or that environment is "the" problem. That is utterly rediculous. That is without doubt going to be seen by China and Asia nothing more than a form of aggression by the West.
What if the generalized ATTITUDE or self-faith of the Far East is such that they are more resistant to environmental challenges that become more "opportunistic" in a 'philosophically challenged' West?
As I've posited before, self-belief, self-faith, has definite and physical manifestations. Not that such is my idea. It is not something I invented. It is based on both observation and the results of individuals who persistantly adhered to this thesis. There is a definite history of such. It is about faith or faiths, but, as I see it, not about merely religious beliefs or traditions. That is something that can be deemed rationally as highly dangerous. I'm talking about something generic. Something spontaneously arising within anyone, no matter what they receive in the form of verbal thoughts. It is a culture much more subtle than a dictum or form of tenet or dogma.
McNuggetz proposes an intelligent hypothesis: what if virus are a form of self control? Maybe I'm taking liberties with his train of thought, but maybe what he means by "Gaia" is what I mean by consciousness itself.
What if the totality of "Me" or "I AM" feels: "I don't like where they are going"? The thought goes forth.
What do we think a "thought" is? Is a thought merely a vibration, with no material adjunct? No manifestation? No actual substantial existence?
How do we define an emotion? What is it? A mere electrical pattern in gray matter? No material manifestation? Really? Then what guides form? What makes the brain enfold? What causes more folds in one brain and less in another? What is the result in a purely "spiritual" reality with no organic manifestation? No connection? Then why should we be concerned about conscience, guilt, why be concerned about murder or hate or crime? It's not of any concern. Merely material adumbrations. Right.
How do we account for the trends of resistance to the various movements of "flu"?
If I may I diverge from this for a moment, or maybe it is most pertinent: How do we account for the reported emergent thoughts and feelings of people who've received transplanted organs?
How do we explain the recipients of these organs new-found and foreign memories only applicable to their donors?
What if viruses are a form of communication? And what if "disease" is merely a form of resistance to "new ideas" or "feelings"?
I have no positive or dogmatic position to assert as my "outline" or thesis, but only questions.
One such question is: What if our future world or worlds is or are only what we choose, or create? And subsequent to this: what kind of world can result when two, three, or more different views must vie for predominance? Can we see in this an explication of how screwed up things can be? The problems of cultures, how to account for so-called pograms or "purification" programs?
We see many bees are dying off. We are looking very closely at this, and find that in analysis, they are infected with all manner of virus, parasites, toxic chemicals or pesticides and what have you. But the thing is, ALL BEES show this, but NOT all bees are undergoing SO-CALLED COLONY COLLAPSE SYNDROM. What is amazing is that despite all these problems or so-called "diseases", most bees keep on doing what they do. What is going on with those bees that seem not to be able to find their way back to their homes?
What if there were a general diminution of LOVE? What if love amongst mankind was diminishing? What if the lack of LOVE was falling off? What if love was at the basis of gravity and orientation?
What if what is going on is the result of the uncertainty of speculators about what is the problem of the bees? What if the problem is the idea that there is a problem?
We have oral traditions that tell us that "weight" was not always a problem. We have many instances of an archaelogical nature that seem to indicate that our forebears could manipulate huge masses without benefit of levers or machinery. I am fully aware of the apologetics of engineers who claim to explain these structures by hindsight.
According to one point of view, gravity as we know it today didn't exist until Newton gave it a materialistic and automatic explication. Before then, perhaps, men could jump off cliffs, and land like down off a duck.
Newton 'CREATED' todays gravity. Newton created a new kind of "faith". Before Newton, we were "wed" to the ground because that was where we met with those we loved. Otherwise, must we dispense with the tales of the many men and women who "flew" from place to place to be with those they loved? Or was that merely a form of "allegory"?
Until we can test and dispense with or utilise the potency of IDEA as a force that can imprison or free us, we must treat ideation as a kind of 'pollutant' of the experiment and the entire idea of 'scientific' method is a pure farce.
This is based on the idea that there is a power that is inactive until thought of and believed in, and which cannot be measured let alone tested when delt with doubt.
Scientific method requires some segment of the community to doubt it, but another segment to fully believe in it and apply it without at the same time imposing on such belief some bias of verbal accession by the reserve or those opposed.
This creates a veritable dichotomy. Indeed, it creates a culture capable of being fully invisible to its opposers.
It devolves on a generality or idea that none are "chosen", but that all can choose to use something that lays latent until idealized and expressed. Thus, a groups faith in death will kill, and a groups faith in life will heal or resurrect.
No one can impose on another the rights or privileges they enjoy or use and be consistant with the principle of freedom of choice. Wouldn't doing so impel opposition?
This is why I detest medical "science". It minimalizes consciousness. It deals with statistics. But that is merely precedent, a trend. Something propogated by merely gazing upon what has gone before. That is a puny criterion. Once one accedes to this philosphy, the internal potency is set aside. Now one is slave to the belief or expectation of others, doubtful though they be. Now you are in a crap shoot.
A great life will be seen as tragic the first time around. The second time, it is seen as a farce. So, live an learn.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware.<
Regor tsop taerg: what we all, whatever
you are concise, I'm verbose. You say in few words what I say with many. ST delineates our fears and we describe our objections to selected parts of the report. We develop a direction. We are co-operating.
cjmoore puts our idiocy to poetic mockery akin to the school of "Shakespeare" (read Essex, the Bacons, Marlow, et als.)
Pinchbeck,Mark Sklawer,Thomas Vaughan, JGex, ChibiOne, Don Shake, Naugahyde_Budda, Zorro,jkfunkee and you, monkeyblood - - - we all - - - form a kind of union of intent towards something better. Editors all, mockers all. Thinkers all. All one, and yet different. Sifting the chaff from the grain or germ of something nutritive and good.
That is my definite opinion. Who can imagine a world without everyone? Who's going to decide some-one's voice is unworthy?
I don't know about you-all, but I prefer criticism.
We have a moral problem. I tend to view praise as a tactic of silencing. Because, most of the time, when one gets a morsel, one wants more. And then, such an one will provide the 'correct' responses to get more.
I call BS. I don't hate myself alone. I hate everyone equally. When I was a child, I loved myself and hated everyone else. Now that I'm a little older, I've learned to hate myself as much as I hate you all. And as I am now a little older than that, I think I might like you as much as I like myself.....not much, but I'm getting used to myself, and I'm inclined to think the world would not be tolerable without you all....as much as I dislike myself. I like you better. Better than being alone.
===========
Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware.
me too
Some addendum...
That is interesting stuff over there.
Also, in previous posts, I mentioned a source of the idea that some ideas have within themselves a kind of "curse" by virtue of the fact they contain an expectation which almost impels the feared result: that putting a fire extinguisher in the house (or 'smoke detector') is a kind of manifestor.
The author I referred to was: Maxine Hong Kingston in "Chinamen" (1980, Knopf).
I also agree with you that awareness is a block against tactics of manipulation whatever its form: whether praise or something as seemingly simple as having a fire-extinguisher in one's home. I don't want to poo-poo practical thinking. I want to know what is the higher form of practical? How do we want to live?
How do you deal with emergencies of the simplest form? When you get a cut on your finger, do you run to the "medicine cabinet" and douse it with iodine or alcohol or just put some spit on it and forget about it?
I guess much of it goes back to another article on this site that deals with commercialism and the promulgation of ideas that can become so entrenched that we are literally slaves to the ideation. Hypnotic implantation.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice the "sugar pill effect" for the what the sugar pill is supposed to induce by belief. If belief is so potent, I think it highly practical to investigate the source of its potency and to learn to live in consonance with that principle or internal potency.
To act with a 'double standard', to think with a double-standard and to feel with a double-standard is simply self-defeatism.
We can't expect definitive results when the first principles of thought, feeling and word and act are divided. That's double-mindedness as it pertains to self-consistency within a sphere of belief in a higher self. The schism between the outer self and the inner self. Ultimately this is about a co-ordination of systems of ideas which is truly evolutionary: one provides superiour results, the other inferior or at best, a mixed bag. It is the mixed-bag kind of thinking that I take exception to on the basis that there is a power that cannot act or be expressed if we take paths that debar it. How could it?
Also, the paper I referred to about the lack of archaeological evidence of virus was from:
Origin and evolution of viruses: Escaped DNA/RNA sequences as evolutionary accelerators and natural biological weapons, by
Ivan Bubanovic,Stevo Najman and Zlatibor Andjelkovic
Published in:
Medical Hypotheses (2005) 65, 868–872
The latter is a good read for anyone wanting some strictly scientific perspective on a history of viruses and, as well, some problems in trying to predict how they behave or will behave or why.
It is available as a PDF document from several sources on the net. One is:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987705002914
I don't think that's where I got this article, since as I recall, Elsevier is a subscription service. Maybe a colleague sent me my copy. I don't recall.
I just got emails from my