Virulence and host range

[Bite Me ATF]

In article <3pm0qo$mhp at umbc9.umbc.edu>, chatski at umbc.edu (chatski carl) writes...
>In article <MAILQUEUE-101.950520104647.480 at bmg.bhs.uab.edu>,
> <PANGELETTI at bmg.bhs.uab.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Hi, I wanted to comment on the viral virulence discussion.  I'd just 
>>like to point out that Ryan (ryan at mbcf.stjude.org) is correct about the 
>>increased pathogenicity being due to an extension of host range. 
> 
>   Ebola is more virulent in primates than in man.  It is not known to
>   infect or be present in any other organism.  The absence of any known
>   host is consistent with the rate at which Ebola destroys host cells.
>   Ironically, the only known place where Ebola exists, in between outbreaks,
>   is the laboratory.

yes, but the current outbreak of virus supposedly is near identical with
outbreaks in the 70's ( as far as the genetic "fingerprint" is concerned).
Now if one considers that this virus supposedly has a high "coefficient of
mutation", and that the chances of mutation increase with replication, while
rembering that the "finger print" of this outbreak is near identical with those
20 years ago; I see only two possibilites (off the top of my head) and they are
:

1. the virus is stable in some host (no massive replication, or host injury)
and that host is capable of spreading the disease to man.  With the added
benifit of man distributing the virus to new reservoirs, SEE the Mincher
Scenario Post.

2. these out breaks are some sort of bio warfare experiment.

comments?

thomas

r b


> 
>-- 
>- Carl
********************************************************

They took out my tonsils when I was little;
But, I still have my paranoids.

Unknown (to me)
--------------------------------------------------------

If we can not trust a freeman with his right to keep and 
bear arms, then how can we trust him with the right to 
vote. Surely the right of a freeman to vote has a much 
greater effect on our collective lives than does any 
individual's firearm. If one argues that the effect of any 
one freeman's vote is minimal, then why allow it in the 
first place?  To be armed is to secure one's right to 
representation.

Thomas Mincher
==========================================================