[Edit -- removed rather inappropriate thread subject. I'd rather let the reasonable discussion continue, without the unnecessary stereotyping (whether in jest or not). --PJ]
[ May 01, 2009, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 127 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, the moment I heard about that business in Israel, I knew the Muslims were going to go full speed ahead complaining. I guaran-frakkin-tee you that if it'd just been Israel, they wouldn't have cared. But note that the article mentions "governments" in the plural.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health has requested that the name be changed (link). Because as we all know, Jews are ever so popular in France.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's face it, "influenza A (H1N1)" is too long for anyone to use in conversation, especially in the news media.
But it is unfair to Mexico to call it "Mexican Flu." The Mexicans surely did not invent it. Patient Zero was merely living among them (a little girl, as it turns out, who has since recovered). And she did come into contact with pigs. Swine. Uh-oh.
I know--we can call it "Babe Flu." Remember the movie about a cute little piggy who wanted to be a sheep dog?
Of course, then beautiful women might take offense. And some people might get the idea it is an STD.
You know, since it seems to have originated in Mexico, we could call it "North American Flu." That's right--Mexico is a part of North America. The small countries south of Mexico are called Central America, so Mexico must be a part of North America.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit confused by some reactions here in this thread. I don't really remember Hedwig, but was this thread anything but a joke?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, pretty sure Hedwig is a more frequent poster's alt for when they want to post something irritating and/or nasty.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
<makes fixed expression of pretend-mirth, emits noises that sound like written descriptions of laughter "huh huh huh huh" in a halfhearted way then snaps mouth shut and changes subject>
I'm so glad the drought in the southeastern US is finally over, aren't you?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You know, since it seems to have originated in Mexico, we could call it "North American Flu." That's right--Mexico is a part of North America. The small countries south of Mexico are called Central America, so Mexico must be a part of North America.
Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I don't understand is how can the fact that WHO removed the word "swine" from the flu's name be seen as a Jewish thing? The objections to that name were made because it seems to say it has been transmitted from pigs and that eating pork right now can be unsafe. Removing the word means the WHO is not endorsing the transmission from pigs theory. So?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Obviously I don't think so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Obviously I don't think so.
Obviously more than one person disagrees with you.
I thought it made perfect sense, and was a decent way to raise some questions brought up by the name change. There are already reports of backlash against the Mexican-American population. Quite often people in the US seem to forget (perhaps deliberatly) that Mexico is part of North America.
Notice no one is volunteering to change the name to NA flu, because WE don't want this flu associated with us.....yet we mock people who object to it being called swine flu, or Mexican Flu.
I am hardly one of Ron's biggest fans, but I thought he made a decent point, in an understandable manner.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Egypt ordering pork farmers to kill their livestock? Since apparently they don't listen to what scientists are saying, changing the name of the disease so the dumb and reactionary don't draw false conclusions is a great idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard speculation (from international students here) that since the only people in Egypt who raise pigs are part of a minority and already somewhat oppressed group the Egyptian government's decision has less to do with medical misunderstanding and more to do with the fact that they don't want pigs there anyway. Deliberate misunderstanding, or siezing the oportunity. I don't know enough personally to know if that's a conspiracy theory or not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, getting rid of chickens and pigs as food crops would remove the main nonhuman vectors for human influenza. Pigs act as intermediating reaction vessels between humans and birds in mixing flu viruses into forms that are transmissible to humans, and into forms that are transmissible to birds. Birds are the main long-distance carriers. ie The main recombination loop is: wild birds <-> domesticated fowl <-> pigs <-> humans <-> pigs <-> domesticated fowl <-> wild birds
Could be that a few smarter-than-average Jews (aka prophets) noticed that 4,000years ago. Just as they could have noticed that filter feeders (clams, etc) and bottom-feeders (catfish, non-scaled fish, lobsters, etc) concentrate the heavy metal (waste from smelting), toxic chemicals, and pathogenic bacteria (from human and animal sewage) dumped into nearby rivers by civilization/cities. And that fish, shrimp, filter feeders, etc would concentrate toxins from algae blooms (red tide / "blood on the waters", etc) -- and contaminated waters that produce algae blooms -- to a level poisonous to humans. (A tradition of seafood dishes solely for the guests of honor at the Festival of the FirstBorn?) Etc.....hence kosher rules.
People were ignorant back then, not unobservant&stupid. Heck, with so many people looking out for our*interests, we can afford to be unobservant&stupid in ways that woulda killed folks in earlier times.
* Or rather their own enlightened self-interest. eg: The more I help others to avoid catching the flu, the less likely it becomes that I will catch the flu. Then even if I do catch the flu, fewer flu patients means more medical attention is available for my benefit.
posted
All domestic animals carry and transmit diseases (Cowpox, for instance, has its name for a reason.). Wild animals as well, but the domestic ones are the ones that get us.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm looking forward to some good sales on ham, pork chops, roast pork, and BBQ pork. Bring on the discounts!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
You folks should really lighten up past "my side" thinking though. Then you woulda noticed the humorous irony in the topic: Israelis (aka "Zionists") controlling a major organization of the "Zionism is racism!!!" UN, the WHO.
posted
So, without any idea of bacteria, viruses, contagions, and mircobiological theory, they noticed that something they couldn't have known about was mutating (a concept they couldn't have known) via antigen shift (...) and infecting humans?
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Could be that a few smarter-than-average Jews (aka prophets) noticed that 4,000years ago. Just as they could have noticed that filter feeders (clams, etc) and bottom-feeders (catfish, non-scaled fish, lobsters, etc) concentrate the heavy metal (waste from smelting), toxic chemicals, and pathogenic bacteria (from human and animal sewage) dumped into nearby rivers by civilization/cities. And that fish, shrimp, filter feeders, etc would concentrate toxins from algae blooms (red tide / "blood on the waters", etc) -- and contaminated waters that produce algae blooms -- to a level poisonous to humans. (Traditional seafood dishes for the guests of honor at the Festival of the FirstBorn?) Etc.....hence kosher rules.
I have been told here on Hatrack that this interpretation of kosher rules is somehow objectionable. Personally I give it a lot of credit, but I've been told that some Jews don't appreciate the speculation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, without any idea of bacteria, viruses, contagions, and mircobiological theory, they noticed that something they couldn't have known about was mutating (a concept they couldn't have known) via antigen shift (...) and infecting humans?"
Yeah, they noticed that the people who raised and/or ate more of certain specific foods died more often, or lived more painfully, or didn't live as long. Nobody knew much about biochemistry* back in the latter 1800s either, and some physicians still noticed that cigarette smokers comprised the overwhelmingly VAST majority of lung cancer victims.
* Or about genes, or much of anything else the presentday medical profession thinks of as a minimum knowlege base.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "...been told...that this interpretation of kosher rules is...objectionable...that some Jews don't appreciate the speculation."
Some Jews believe that God gave them rules. Other Jews believe that God gave them enough brains to figure out the rules.
I know Jews (observant Jews) who are not only not offended by such speculations about the origins of Kosher laws but who make such speculations themselves. I can understand why Jews would reject that sort of interpretation or wish to make it clear that health is not their reasons for following the laws. But its sort of silly to get offended when non-Jews question the divine origins of Judaism.
People who take offense when those who do not adhere to their religion speculate about possible non-divine sources for their religion are in general taking offense way too easily.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is a difference between the two statements:
1. There are health reasons that make the kosher laws make sense. Perhaps that is some of the reasoning. I may never completely understand.
2. There are health reasons that make the kosher laws make sense. Those must be all of the reasoning behind them. I don't buy the health reasons in a modern world. Therefore, they are now irrelevant.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All domestic animals carry and transmit diseases (Cowpox, for instance, has its name for a reason.). Wild animals as well, but the domestic ones are the ones that get us.
Actual, transmission of disease between animals and humans is relatively rare. Transmission of a disease from animals to humans and then continued transmission of the disease between humans is extremely rare. Cowpox, for example, was transmitted from cows to milkmaids but not transmitted from milkmaids to other humans.
The primary exceptions I can think of are diseases that are spread by insects and in this case its not so much a case of an animal disease jumping to humans as it is animals and insects acting as a vector for transmission of a human disease (i.e. the animals and insects that transmit the disease rarely suffer any ill effects).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hedwig: [Edit -- removed rather inappropriate thread subject. I'd rather let the reasonable discussion continue, without the unnecessary stereotyping (whether in jest or not). --PJ]
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Then the statement I was responding to REALLY doesn't make any sense.
However, the point in general holds, even if there is a step between them.
No the statement you were responding to makes sense because it was talking specifically about flu and flu is one of the exceptional diseases which does frequently jump between birds to pigs to humans and because it mutates quickly, an influenza virus that jumps from domesticated pigs to humans will frequently be spread from human to human.
Furthermore, modern industrial chicken and pig farms which confine huge numbers of animals in a very limited space form an almost ideal breeding ground for deadly diseases. In the wild, a virus that kills its host quickly, or even makes the host too sick to move about, won't spread very far. Highly virulent disease tend to be self limiting in the wild. But in a factory farm, (or the trenches in WW I), the hosts are packed in so close that a very deadly disease has a chance to spread very rapidly. Eating pigs and chickens that are raised in mega-industrial farms does in fact present a threat to human health that is not at all similar to other diseases that might be carried or spread by animals and insects.
So when you imply that there is no reason to differentiate between domesticated chickens and pigs and other animals because all animals can transmit diseases, you are simply wrong.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are reading more into his statement than is justified.
I don't see how. But perhaps I was reading more into yours than was justified. Your statement seemed to imply that there was no more reason to consider pigs and chickens as more likely to spread disease than other domesticated animals. If this was not your intent, I apologize.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah-ha. I think I now understand both Kwea's and katharina's (essentially same) objection.
Sorry, I was mixing the results seen and corrections made by people back then with the explanations that presentday people see for those results and corrections without pointing out that I was doing so. eg Negative result seen by the people of the past: People who eat bottom-feeders and filter-feeders get ill more often, and/or are weaker more often, and/or become weak-minded more often, and/or etc than those who do not. Corrective action: Put a ban on eating bottom-feeders and filter-feeders. Presentday Explanation: Waters near those centers of civilization got strongly contaminated by heavy metal from smelting. (Anytime you separate gold, silver, or copper from their ores, you get lead and/or mercury and/or several other toxic contaminants in the leftover slag. Which goes into the nearest apparently "self-cleaning" dump, the river. Even if it didn't, the next set of heavy rains would wash some of those contaminants into the river, eventually. Unfortunately, rivers are not as self-cleaning as they appear to be. And much of those contaminants would settle&mix into the soil at the river bottom where they would continue to bleed small amounts into the water for many years after the original dumping). Bottom-feeders (because they're the closest and thus live&feed in the most strongly contaminated volume) and filter-feeders (because they siphon through LOTS of water to obtain their food needs) concentrate those heavy metals and other toxins. People who eat those bottom-feeders and filter-feeders also end up eating (more)concentrated heavy metals and other toxins. Which causes them to become less healthy (Heavy metals poison the body's organs, lowers the brains processing capabilities, and causes insanity at the strongest non-fatal dosages), more susceptable to other illnesses (Heavy metals also suppress the immune system), and shortens lifespan (with a sufficiently high dose, very quickly). Presentday conclusion: The ban totally makes sense even at the purely physical level alone.
There are similar unstated breakdowns into negative result seen by the people of the past, their corrective action, presentday explanation, and presentday conclusion for the other examples that I mentioned.
(I'm staying away from the psychological, cultural, and spiritual levels in this particular posting. I'll leave that for my response to Minerva; IF I can figure out how to phrase it in a manner that won't anger everyone, and I mean that quite literally.)
So do any of you still want a fuller explanation about pigs and the flu and bans?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
