Talk:Influenza A virus subtype H5N1/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Immune response may be what is deadly

"UW researchers link deadliness of 1918 flu to severe immune system response"[1] [2]at least with the H1N1 influenza strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic. The same may be true of future pandemics. This points the way to a possible two-pronged strategy for attacking the problem.69.6.162.160 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

This has been known for years. The inflammatory cascade triggered by both H5N1 and the Spanish Flu (a.k.a. the 1918 flu) has been called a 'cytokine storm' by some, because of what seems to be a positive feedback process of damage to the body resulting from immune system stimulation. H5N1 induces higher levels of cytokines than the more common flu virus. WAS 4.250 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they now know enough about the immune system in order to find a way to moderate the immune response.69.6.162.160 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

TGN1412 WAS 4.250 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. But, would I be correct in reading that as stimulation of the immune system, instead of suppression?69.6.162.160 03:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

You're right -- the TGN1412 issue was effectively immunosuppressive (okay, I'll buy "drastically modulatory") rather than generally immunomodulatory, but the "big picture" problem is basically the same: we're still too early in the game to confidently say much of anything about how the immune system control structures work. Maybe in a decade or two.... -- MarcoTolo 03:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be other approaches, altogether that may work. If we look at different areas of medicine, we might get ideas we wouldn't otherwise have. Take this experiment, for example, having to do with melanoma.[3] A person might ask himself what would happen if chopped up pieces of H5N1 were introduced to a person? 69.6.162.160 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

• That's basically what a subunit vaccine is - the immunogenic portions of a bug that induce an immune response. The problem with many viruses -- and influenza in particular -- revolves around the continuously changing nature of those fragments, and thus the difficulty our immune systems have in recognizing the changed invader. -- MarcoTolo 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Treatment 'to neutralise all flu'

"Crowding out the invading influenza" is a possibility. See Treatment 'to neutralise all flu' - 69.6.162.160 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

The article says "Professor Nigel Dimmock has spent more than two decades developing the new approach. To create the 'protecting virus' he deleted around 80% of the genetic material of one of the eight RNA segments that make up the flu virus. This deletion makes the virus harmless and prevents it from reproducing by itself within a cell, so that it cannot spread like a normal influenza virus. However, if it is joined in the cell by another influenza virus, it retains its harmless nature but starts to reproduce - and at a much faster rate than the new influenza virus. This fast reproduction rate - spurred by the new flu infection - means that the new invading influenza is effectively crowded out." This is not junk science, but as the article also says "This is cutting edge science, but there is a lot that could still go wrong." We have the article Flu research for this sort of thing. Add it there if you like. WAS 4.250 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another promising approach is the discovery of a peptide which could prevent "numerous subtypes" of flu.[4]If that isn't enough, maybe a combination of approaches would be. Both of these could be added to the article Flu research69.6.162.160 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Was, I moved this section to Flu research. Could you check to see if it looks OK?69.6.162.160 03:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

WAS 4.250, what do you think about putting a link to Flu research in the H5N1 artcle? 69.6.162.160 02:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Please add a link to Flu research anywhere you feel is appropriate. WAS 4.250 05:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Flu template edits

I've made two links to the flu templates, and added the expanded template to the sites to which the new links lead. All templates at any given site will have the name of that site in the template, but I made them null so they won't be linked to the same site. If there are any objections or other comments, let me know.Brian Pearson 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Posible way to prevent a pandemic

If we inject a vaccine that prevents the current type of avian flu that might mutate into a pandemic into humans, that might not give the virus a chance to mutate, therefore no mutated pandemic virus, but that's just my theory, and I'm not a doctor, so can anyone confirm if this method will work? - unsigned

That method will not work for these reasons:

1. There is no manufacturing capacity to create enough vaccine.
2. There are hundreds of strains of avian flu virus and dozens of those are pandemic risks and it mutates fast enough that there are new unpredictable strains every several months.
3. The strains are mutating in birds and not humans so to eliminate its mutation possibilities we would need to vaccinate trillions of wild and farmed birds which is impossible. WAS 4.250 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

H5N1 Vaccine?

See this CNN news article: [5] --Just James 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Page not found" Could it be similar to this page?[6] Brian Pearson 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigerian case - article needs update

Can someone please update the table of the death toll to 164 and include 1 death from Nigeria? It is confirmed on the link underneath the statistics table and on this article. --Brianmc 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk (uk) outbreak

BBC have just announced that there has been an outbreak at a Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Suffolk. Apart from a couple of dead swans this is the first bird dead from H5N1 and the first outbreak in the UK. I think this should be included as soon as some more information becomes available as it shows how far into the western world the virus has spread. --Chr1sday87 06:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

it was confirmed it`s the version that`s dangerous for people FANSTAR 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC News now say[7] that they are preparing to slaughter ~159000 turkeys, they've now set up a 3km "exclusion zone", a 10km "surveillance zone" and a "restricted zone" that covers more than 2000 square kilometres. ErkDemon 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone?

Can someone colour Laos darkred on the image showing the spread of H5N1 to birds and humans last time I tried uploading an image it was deleted because I got the licensing wrong. Thanks. --Kuzwa 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Zanamivir

In the page about H5N1 I found a probable typing mistake, in the last paragraph under the title 'Treatment and prevention for humans'. IN the first sentence I found between brackets the word 'Zanamivir', in the 2nd sentence it's typed as 'Zazavimir'. - (signed) - greets from niche²

Thank you. WAS 4.250 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Poultry symptoms missing

I looked up this article to find information on specific poultry symptoms (other than death) and to my amazement, found none. How about some info regarding laying of shell-less eggs, respiratory symptoms, etc.? This disease is wreaking havoc on chickens in some parts of the world, and most of this information is about human medicine, virology, and epidemiology. How about some differential diagnosis info for VVND, etc.? - 169.237.77.80

Clicking on Infection in the box at the very top right of the article takes you to the article Transmission and infection of H5N1 where we have a sort section called Avian flu in birds where we deal with transmission and infection of H5N1 in birds. You can click on the references there and find sources (most online) for further information. Feel free to improve wikipedia with the information you find (just indicate the source - don't worry about correct formating, I'd be happy to do that part). For example, this article called "Performance of clinical signs in poultry for the detection of outbreaks during the avian influenza A (H7N7) epidemic in The Netherlands in 2003." says "The aim of this study was to make an inventory of the clinical signs of high-pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), to facilitate the development of an operational syndrome-reporting system (SRS) in The Netherlands as an early warning system for HPAI outbreaks. A total of 537 poultry flocks (240 infected and 297 non-infected) with a clinical suspicion of an infection with HPAI virus were investigated with respect to the clinical signs observed. Standardized reports were analysed with respect to observed clinical signs in the flocks. Various poultry types were distinguished. In infected commercial flocks with egg-producing chickens, the presence of increased mortality, apathy, coughing, reduction in normal vocalization, or pale eggs appeared to be overall the most sensitive indicators to detect a HPAI outbreak, matching a sensitivity of 99% with a specificity of 23%. In infected turkey flocks, the presence of apathy, decreased growth performance, reduction of normal vocalization, swollen sinuses, yawning, huddling, mucosal production from the beak, or lying down with an extended neck appeared to be overall the most sensitive indicators to detect a HPAI outbreak, matching a sensitivity of 100% with a specificity of 79%. In infected backyard/hobby flocks, increased mortality or swollen head appeared to be overall the most sensitive indicators of a HPAI outbreak, matching a sensitivity of 100% with a specificity of 26%. These results indicate that there is a solid basis for the choice of using increased mortality in the operational SRS in The Netherlands as an early warning system for HPAI outbreaks. The presence of apathy, specifically for turkeys, should be added to the SRS as an indicator". You will note that it was a study of HPAI due to H7N7 and you asked about HPAI due to H5N1. The disease HPAI manifests itself mostly the same in poultry whether it is from one subtype or another (which is to say the symptoms vary more between strains in a subtype than between subtypes when the disease is HP rather than LP). Timm C. Harder and Ortrud Werner say in Avian Influenza of Influenza Report "Following an incubation period of usually a few days (but rarely up to 21 days), depending upon the characteristics of the isolate, the dose of inoculum, the species, and age of the bird, the clinical presentation of avian influenza in birds is variable and symptoms are fairly unspecific (Elbers 2005). Therefore, a diagnosis solely based on the clinical presentation is impossible. The symptoms following infection with low pathogenic AIV may be as discrete as ruffled feathers, transient reductions in egg production or weight loss combined with a slight respiratory disease (Capua and Mutinelli 2001). Some LP strains such as certain Asian H9N2 lineages, adapted to efficient replication in poultry, may cause more prominent signs and also significant mortality (Bano 2003, Li 2005). In its highly pathogenic form, the illness in chickens and turkeys is characterised by a sudden onset of severe symptoms and a mortality that can approach 100 % within 48 hours (Swayne and Suarez 2000). Spread within an affected flock depends on the form of rearing: in herds which are litter-reared and where direct contact and mixing of animals is possible, spread of the infection is faster than in caged holdings but would still require several days for complete contagion (Capua 2000). Often, only a section of a stable is affected. Many birds die without premonitory signs so that sometimes poisoning is suspected in the beginning (Nakatami 2005). It is worth noting, that a particular HPAI virus isolate may provoke severe disease in one avian species but not in another: in live poultry markets in Hong Kong prior to a complete depopulation in 1997, 20 % of the chickens but only 2.5 % of ducks and geese harboured H5N1 HPAIV while all other galliforme, passerine and psittacine species tested virus-negative and only the chickens actually showed clinical disease (Shortridge 1998). In industrialised poultry holdings, a sharp rise followed by a progressive decline in water and food consumption can signal the presence of a systemic disease in a flock. In laying flocks, a cessation of egg production is apparent. Individual birds affected by HPAI often reveal little more than severe apathy and immobility (Kwon 2005). Oedema, visible at feather-free parts of the head, cyanosis of comb, wattles and legs, greenish diarrhoea and laboured breathing may be inconsistently present. In layers, soft-shelled eggs are seen initially, but any laying activities cease rapidly with progression of the disease (Elbers 2005). Nervous symptoms including tremor, unusual postures (torticollis), and problems with co-ordination (ataxia) dominate the picture in less vulnerable species such as ducks, geese, and ratites (Kwon 2005). During an outbreak of HPAI in Saxonia, Germany, in 1979, geese compulsively swimming in narrow circles on a pond were among the first conspicuous signs leading to a preliminary suspicion of HPAI.". Also note that vaccinated chickens can catch HPAI stains of H5N1 and not show symptoms at all, but can transmit it. This is a very big problem. WAS 4.250 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I don't think that the current title (H5N1) is sufficiently informative as a description of the article's content for the general reader. I note that there has been an extended discussion of this in the "Featured article candidate" application. I think that an appropriate title should be "H5N1 influenza". However that is currently a re-direct to "Transmission and infection of H5N1". Axl 09:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

H5N1 is a virus subtype. "H5N1 influenza" is the name of a disease. The subject areas mix but are not identical. People can easily find this article thru flu or bird flu or avian flu or many other terms. It is well interlinked. WAS 4.250 01:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review needed

This article received its Good Article rating on 12 December 2005 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over time; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies.

By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required. Otherwise, how might a delisting editor justify his or her delisting, or offer cogent reasons why the Good Article mark should remain? In either case, anything short of a fair review is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please delist this article from any and all categories that you wish. Please also help to improve this article. Meeting one size fits all criteria is ignorant. WAS 4.250 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seminar link

While cleaning up the Nabaro/Brown WHO commentary ("No one knows X") section, I've removed this link.

It does appear to have some good data in there.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) SCIENTIFIC SEMINAR ON AVIAN INFLUENZA, THE ENVIRONMENT AND MIGRATORY BIRDS ON 10-11 APRIL 2006 published 14 April 2006

--ZayZayEM 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this change removed good data; but wikipedia is a collaboration - so what the heck. WAS 4.250 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out what specific data was removed. I tried to summarise the two main articles into sensible prose. Several of the "no one knows X" dot points are not backed up the sources, nor are they informative.--ZayZayEM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i'll also point out several "noone knows" statements are already in thebody of the text:

• the role of animals other than poultry and waterfowl as disease-spreading hosts is unknown
• we remain unsure about Tamiflu's real effectiveness
• No one knows if these or other symptoms will be the symptoms of a humanized H5N1 flu.
• Neither oseltamivir nor zanamivir can currently be manufactured in quantities that would be meaningful once efficient human transmission starts
• etc.

These statements make the section rather redundant, but also there are several statements in this article that show that some people actually do know something about those points. And finally some points are stuff that really aren't going to be "known" too well, ever, about anything.

Eg. No one knows if H5N1 will ever go away. - who says that's realistic, an option, what exactly is meant by "go away", why the emphasis on ever, how will we know... --ZayZayEM 07:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to explain it. If I am telling you things you already know, please bear with me. I'm not a mind reader. All previous highly pathogenic avian flus went away. Disappeared. Kill all the chickens and the strain died out. Poof. Gone. Previous HPAI stains only existed in domesticated birds. A wild bird's LPAI would mutate in a domestic flock into an HPAI strain, all domestic birds in the area would be killed, and the HPAI strain would no longer have any hosts and thus would no longer exist. This current HPAI H5N1 stain has turned out to be different. In October 2004 researchers discovered H5N1 is far more dangerous than previously believed because waterfowl, especially ducks, were directly spreading the highly pathogenic strain of H5N1. From this point on, avian flu experts increasingly refer to containment as a strategy that can delay but not prevent a future avian flu pandemic. None the less, there is still hope it will mutate into some low pathogenic strain over time and no longer exist in its current high pathogenic set of strains. But as time as gone on, the hope has come to look less and less likely. The result is that billions of dollars every year are going to be needed in expenditures that would not be required if it did go away. Poultry farming is especially hard hit. But how to spend the money? What helps the most? Put all poultry in sealed buildings? Shoot wild birds? Wild bird surveillance? What? This is where the lack of data comes in. Since it is not going away as was hoped, we need data to figure out how best to cope. So governments are funding all sorts of studies from cell culture of flu viruses to H5N1 vaccination effectiveness to adjuvants to wild bird migration patterns to wild bird avian flu subtype distribution to poultry flu vaccination etc. The information being gathered is increasing the world's ability to keep H5N1 contained, limiting its speed and extent of mutation, and buying time for new flu vaccine manufacturing methods and factories to come on line so that when the next flu pandemic happens the death toll can be minimized. That's the point of all that "what we don't know" stuff. WAS 4.250 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See also [8] and [9]. WAS 4.250 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see the link with your points here and a bunch of general "no one knows X" statements. As I mention above a lot of this information is in the article already in appropriate places. Why does it need to be repeated/stressed?--ZayZayEM 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What we don't know about flu is one of the most important aspects about flu. But I am beginning to think it really should go in flu research anyway. Your suggestion at Talk:Avian flu that it would go better at H5N1 isn't so, because it is flu and influenzavirus A and flu pandemic and H5N1 that is being discussed as needing more flu research. Maybe I'll try to rewrite it and put it at flu research ... WAS 4.250 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone

This is being marked for tone, as with a lot of our Flu/H5N1 realted articles there is an overuse of alarmist tone language that seems to be over bearing. While it is not "Aaaah! Bird Flu will kill you all. Puny humans." It still requires sufficient work that I think the tag is definitely warranted. Please take note, Wikipedia is a tertiary encyclopedic resource. It is NOT a How-to guide, a safety manual, a news outlet or public health information resource. It has clear policy on neutral point of view and guidelines for not applying undue weight on particularly resources, as well as clearly attributing statements from verified sources.--ZayZayEM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Text examples. Statements like:

"Due to the high lethality and virulence of HPAI A(H5N1), its endemic presence, its increasingly large host reservoir, and its significant ongoing mutations, the H5N1 virus is the world's largest current pandemic threat, and billions of dollars are being spent researching H5N1 and preparing for a potential influenza pandemic."

Seem to be overbalancing statements like:

"HPAI A(H5N1) is an avian disease. There is no evidence of efficient human-to-human transmission or of airborne transmission of HPAI A(H5N1) to humans."

Both statements are accurate, true, verifiable and sourced. This is not a content issue. It is simply a matter of the tone and style of language used in the article.--ZayZayEM 07:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Experts are alarmed. Why? Billions of dollars are being spent. Why? The first quote answers those. But don't panic. Why? We don't know that there will be an H5N1 pandemic and there can not be one with the current exact strains that now exist. How do we know that? The second quote answers those. Both points need to be made clearly. I and others did our best to make those points clear. You seem to not believe that flu experts are alarmed. They are. There is a point to the existence of alarm bells. Flu experts rang theirs. Governments believe them and are spending billions to put out this "fire". You appear to believe that all alarms are false alarms. This one is real. The fire-hoses are aimed at the brush fire that so far has killed relatively few people. If we do nothing, maybe nature will put it out with a rain. Or maybe it'll burn down a million acres. The experts rang the alarm, the workers are trying to contain the situation, and the outcome remains in doubt. That your house has not yet burned down does not make it a false alarm. WAS 4.250 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing a problem with the tone of this article. ZayZayEM seems to say that the wording is "overly alarmist", which must mean "compared to the sources". In my view, the tone is matching the references quite well, as WAS 4.250 is arguing. I think the tone of this article is quite "neutral" compared to some non-technical reports I saw over the last years, who really would tell you to "run to the hills". This article does no such thing, and does not give any "health advice". As such it is within the spirit of WP as it is. Awolf002 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the tone matches some sources well. I do feel that the balance of sources may be a problem. and some sources could be better attributed in-text. This article could be a lot worse. But it can also be a lot better. I ahve not marked it as innacurate or POV, I just very strongly feel the tone needs improvement.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you remove the fact that experts are alarmed, then you introduce bias. I think your feelings on this matter are similar to those who wish to tone down WWII type articles by removing "shocking" pictures of dead people, as if a neutral article on war should present war as something less horrible than it actually is. On the other hand, maybe you can improve the tone in ways I'm not seeing. I recommend you remove the tag and try your hand at editing for tone and see if people think you are improving or hurting the article. Accurately reflect the sources is all I ask. Which means actually reading all the sources for a paragraph before editing that paragraph for tone; otherwise you would simply be changing tone based on something other than the sources which is against WP:OR. WAS 4.250 14:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is some experts are alarmed. It is important to note which experts, when, what body, who reported it and in what context. Details are important. I want more information not less.--ZayZayEM 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So add it. WAS 4.250 18:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Busy.--ZayZayEM 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template it is about tone that is not "appropriate for Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not news, an alert service, or public health action guide. It should not follow tones brought to the fore by news articles.--ZayZayEM 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not. This article reflects the tone set by the world's foremost experts on the subject who believe we face something that requires billions to be spent to mitigate the possible impact of a flu pandemic. WAS 4.250 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with comments that talk about the alarmist POV - this should be a factual article about the actual virus. It is of course appropriate to talk about people's views BUT in a different section and not intermingled with the factual data. The article needs splitting into FACT, followed by VIEWS. JulianHensey 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Table out of date

The table is out of date, total deaths is now 207, not 2003. Yes, this is per WHO. --Brian McNeil /^talk 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Move of article

I think the move from H5N1 to Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 was not discussed anywhere, and in my oppinion should be reverted! All subtype articles simply use the four letter shorthand, see the Influenza nav box on the bottom. Awolf002 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should be moved back. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will move this article back, if no other discussion is needed. :-) Awolf002 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, by now all 'H(i)N(k)' pages were moved in a similar fashion. Does this mean, we have consensus on all of these moves? Awolf002 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My main concern was that they all be one or the other. Now that they are all the same, I think it best to leave it alone. The new titles are more descriptive and the old titles are redirected and if something else gets named 'H(i)N(k)' then that redirect can become a disambig page. so unless there is some groundswell of support for naming back, let's let this stay as is. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WHO confirms human-human transmission

see [10]. The article needs to be changed in several areas to reflect this, but i don't feel confident or familiar with the subject matter to do so. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Person to person is currently very very very rare, requiring very very very close persistant contact during health care to a dying person. What happened in Pakistan also happened in Indonesia and I think Vietnam. There is no change in the status of H5N1 regarding person to person transmissibility. Can you quote a passage you think needs changing? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WHO Suspects Human-to-Human Transmission Occured in Indonesia

I edited the article to incorporate a recent WHO statement that Drudge broke: http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sludge (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NEJM update

There is an update on H5N1 in the latest NEJM: Abdel-Ghafar AN, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z; et al. (2008). "Update on avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in humans". N. Engl. J. Med. 358 (3): 261–73. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0707279. PMID 18199865. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --WS (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

New antibodies block a range of influenzas

Perhaps this new information should be added to this article : http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090222/full/news.2009.116.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.62.161 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of date

"H5N1, the world's major current pandemic threat..."
As I write this, H1N1 has not killed as many as H5N1, but still this claim seems out of date and/or subjective. --77.44.77.44 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A new swine-origin strain of H1N1 is causing a current pandemic - it is not a threat, it is actually causing a pandemic. The asian linage HPAI H5N1 strain is still only threatening to cause a pandemic. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a semantic game. If we were currently having a nuclear war with russia, you wouldn't say "the greatest threat of a nuclear war is with Iran"; it's a misleading statement. At the very least you'd mention the current war.

Also, I'd bet that that statement has not changed recently. While the statement may be technically correct (though misleading), at this time, it's clear that that statement has been on this page at times when it was incorrect (e.g. just before H1N1 got the pandemic classification). I suggest rephrase or removal so that the paragraph doesn't need updating all the time. --MijinLaw (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Human update

Bird flu is in Inner Mongolia, but not Mongolia or the Sudan. [11]/ [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.1.80 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mutation fears

Some info is here: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137555 Any thoughts on this? Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Influenza A virus subtype H5N1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

1. This page as it pertains to a disease should follow WP:MEDMOS.
2. Could use an infobox
3. Flu template is there twice?
4. Not all refs are properly formated.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is really good all in all. Just needs a few tweaks to meet GA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold since early January and several of the above issues were not addressed. In addition, there are several cleanup tags throughout the article that need to be fixed. As a result, I have delisted the article on behalf of Jmh649. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, make sure the article complies with the GA criteria, and then please renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't the table be in the article?

Seems life the table should be in the article rather then in the sources and notes section? maybe its there for a reason Im unaware of? anyone want to move it into the article? -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

yes i think someone made a mistake when adding a reference and brought the table into the ref section, i'm surprised someone didn't spot that earlier thanks Tom B (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

totals in the lead need updating

I updated an outdated situation report ref in the lead but the data confuses me. Im not sure where the total outbreaks info is being derived from as it does not seem to be in the ref. It just lists most recent time a country had an outbreak. also parts seem outdated after early 2008 as it looks like there are 17 countries with outbreaks in 2010 compared to 5 according to the article in 2008. so if someone could update that would be great. Im not gonna even try here as I have no idea and will likely make it worse. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Article?

I am considering setting up an H5N1 timeline article à la the 2009_flu_pandemic_timeline. Although WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL (and there is certainly no WHO-level bird flu pandemic as of this writing), I believe that H5N1 deserves a timeline given its extant notability. On the one hand, we may just be interminably tracking what it does in animal reservoirs, albeit with occasional incursions into the realm of Homo sapiens, but on the other hand if it does go postal we would have a template in place and we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel under the pressure of events. And in any case a timeline would afford a more stringent presentation of information. kencf0618 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the heavy lifting has already been done with Global spread of H5N1, so I'll hack away at it. kencf0618 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The most dangerous viruses

Maybe we should create a section that discuss the mutated h5n1 genome? Right now it is only included in the last para in the lead. An article, doi:10.1038/nature10831, has already been published in Nature, and the one by Ron Fouchier will probably be published in Science soon. The research has caused much debate around the world. The User 567 (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

High risk countries

Would it be possible to possibly have a section dedicated to include countries that are at high risk from the H5N1 virus? Thank you. (195.194.74.146 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

First North American death

In Canada.[13] --Kuzwa (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

History

There's no history section??? When was the first signs of its appearance in human history? When was it first recorded? What is its history of outbreaks? 72.197.162.227 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you have time to work on it? Gandydancer (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ron Fouchier's research

The paragraph - added by vs5982 on November 2011 - about Ron Fouchier's creation of a new strain of H5N1 at the Erasmus Medical Center only references http://rt.com/news/bird-flu-killer-strain-119/ as a source. Both give the impression of a gratuitous and highly dangerous research. The press communique from the Erasmus Medical Center about this research - http://www.erasmusmc.nl/corp_home/corp_news-center/2011/2011-11/vogelgriep.gevaarlijk.mensenviru/?lang=en - explains that it was conducted in a high-security laboratory, also at the request of the US NIH, with the purpose of studying a mutation that might well occurr naturally. I am not a scientist, so I am not going to edit this Wikipedia article, but the press communique seems more trustworthy than the piece from RT. Could someone qualified look into this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calmansi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC) ghgfhdfhdh hdfhdfhjgikkkkkkkl;tznnjtrs trrhsrja rtsjtshsdftuhssj jtyjdjs tskgtdjdnz jtjtrjhrfg iki;lkoeas ghjtyudefh iliuo;;;;;;;dsldfkf;lleW;VLRLF,.YG;LFD,LAE;MF;ZFMKLJGALDMGF KJLL;JFLSJLAEOIFRNkjnhklfsuhudshfiu;mlfdpot dafjgdiijadopiaerokasdlkosANKkdjfjids;lspdioksdfjpoerjds; dfjfjoidsj;gfjioew[psmf[pasmkjljodfpos'oeoirj;cxkmfo ario;jfdijofkldm,oap'adsk;liorkjfjir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.89.154 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Influenza A virus subtype H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517054650/http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-18-02.asp to http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-18-02.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060330013814/http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/a13fd43bc74b6209dc90f6d849ffa45b.htm to http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/a13fd43bc74b6209dc90f6d849ffa45b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Review of global epidemiology

Lancet Infect Dis doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00153-5 JFW | T@lk 10:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)