Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum
http://fluboard.rhizalabs.com/forum/

Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G
http://fluboard.rhizalabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4564
Page 1 of 3

Author:  niman [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

On December 28, WHO issued a preliminary report on D225G (aka D222G), which was obsolete before it was released.

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/public ... iruses.pdf

The same report was then e-mailed 3 weeks later in the Weekly Epidemiological Record.

http://www.who.int/wer/2010/wer8504.pdf

A large number of sequences have been released this year, contradicting all major points in the WHO report.

A WHO update is long overdue.

Author:  niman [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

Commentary

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/02031 ... olete.html

Author:  niman [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

WHO quotable quotes:

Nov 17 Ukraine update:
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_16/en/index.html
Preliminary tests reveal no significant changes in the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus based on investigations of samples taken from patients in Ukraine.

Nov 20 Briefing Report on Norway Mutation:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu ... index.html
The mutations appear to occur sporadically and spontaneously. To date, no links between the small number of patients infected with the mutated virus have been found and the mutation does not appear to spread.

December 28 report on D225G:
The D222G substitution has been detected in virus isolates from around 20 countries, areas and territories in the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania. These changes have been found since April 2009 but have not been associated with temporal or geographical clustering, strongly suggesting the mutation in these viruses has occurred sporadically as opposed to the emergence and sustained transmission of a variant virus.

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

Since the subject of this thread is obsolete reports of D225G, WHO's partner in crime, ECDC comments are also notable. They even qualified there spontaneus, no transmission musings with a "suprise" warning

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/12290 ... prise.html

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

ECDC quotable quote from December 28:

After considering the current available virological, epidemiological and clinical findings and following discussions on an earlier draft with WHO and its European-based Collaborating Centre ECDC has come to a preliminary formulation namely that the G222D/N variants exist in a small proportion of sporadic severe, as well as mild cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) infection and that these represents natural variation of the virus with no special association with severity of the disease course. As such and while they do not transmit they should have a minimal impact on public health and pandemic response. Current data suggests that the cases involving variant viruses in different parts of the world are unrelated and the underlying mutation events probably occurred independently from each other in the infected individuals as a consequence of the natural variability of influenza viruses and their inability to correct random coding
errors
. However because of that inherent variability and ability to surprise the 2009 A(H1N1) will need on-going combined virological, epidemiological and clinical surveillance and study.

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopi ... 900hrs.pdf

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

It is remarkable that these WHO "experts" were surpised by the H274Y (Tamiflu resistance in seasonal flu). They were surpised at the high frequency in some European countries in the 2007/2008 season, and then were again suprised by the fixing of H274Y by H1N1 in the 2008/2009. The reason they were surprised is because they thing infleunza evolution is based on random copy errors. Consequently, the predictions are always wrong ad they blame the virus!

However, the virus is quite predictable. which is why RBD S227N was correctly predicted in H5N1 in Turkey in 2005/2006 and why D225G and D225N were correctly predicted in H1N1 in 2009.

However, the experts were so firmly linked to random mutations, that they didn't believe the predictions AFTER they were confirmed. They STILL insisted it was all random and unpredictable in H5N1 in 2006 and pandemic H1N1 in 2009,

Surprise, surprise!

Author:  Gator Flu Watcher [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

I have a question:

How did the first D225G or N or E happen? If it was random, then couldn't it happen again here and there? (I am not arguing it is not transmitting)

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

Gator Flu Watcher wrote:
I have a question:

How did the first D225G or N or E happen? If it was random, then couldn't it happen again here and there? (I am not arguing it is not transmitting)

The polymorphisms have been around for ages. As has been noted D225G was in lung of 1919 cases. It is fairly common in swine H1N1 and is aso in avian H5N1 (but it is much easier to be acquired for swne H1 than avian H5). D225N is in seasonal H3N2, but probably in many other sequences / species not weell represented in the database. The same is probably true for D225E. As has been reported, H1N1 can easily jump to swine, ferrets, domestic and wild cats, dogs, and turkeys. It is likley that the number of species is MUCH higher, but untested.
Infleunza is not new. It has quite a reservoir of sequences, no database required.
New mutations can happen, but RARELY see the light of day.

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

niman wrote:
ECDC quotable quote from December 28:

After considering the current available virological, epidemiological and clinical findings and following discussions on an earlier draft with WHO and its European-based Collaborating Centre ECDC has come to a preliminary formulation namely that the G222D/N variants exist in a small proportion of sporadic severe, as well as mild cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) infection and that these represents natural variation of the virus with no special association with severity of the disease course. As such and while they do not transmit they should have a minimal impact on public health and pandemic response. Current data suggests that the cases involving variant viruses in different parts of the world are unrelated and the underlying mutation events probably occurred independently from each other in the infected individuals as a consequence of the natural variability of influenza viruses and their inability to correct random coding
errors
. However because of that inherent variability and ability to surprise the 2009 A(H1N1) will need on-going combined virological, epidemiological and clinical surveillance and study.

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopi ... 900hrs.pdf

More ECDC quotables:

To date no connection between cases, suggestive of transmission, has been found and it seems that the appearance in various countries is more the result of routine sequencing rather than spread of the mutation. It is also unclear if the association with severe cases is coincidental or not, perhaps resulting from preferred sequencing of specimens and viruses from severe cases/deaths.

Author:  niman [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obsolete WHO Reports on D225G

niman wrote:
More ECDC quotables:

To date no connection between cases, suggestive of transmission, has been found and it seems that the appearance in various countries is more the result of routine sequencing rather than spread of the mutation. It is also unclear if the association with severe cases is coincidental or not, perhaps resulting from preferred sequencing of specimens and viruses from severe cases/deaths.

The above is yet another example of how a lack of testing is used to deny reality. A subsequent report out of Italy detailed transmission within a family,

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/01171 ... uster.html

but for most of the cases there is EXTREMELY poor follow-up, so the lack of testing in contacts is used to claim the D225G or D225N is not transmiting.

These statements are not based on science. They are PURELY political.

This type of analysis creates the true FAKE pandemic.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/