Chicken Vaccines Combine To Produce Deadly Virus 178
stoilis sends this quote from an article at Science:
"Vaccines aren't supposed to cause disease. But that appears to be what's happening on Australian farms. Scientists have found that two virus strains used to vaccinate chickens there may have recombined to form a virus that is sickening and killing the animals 'This shows that recombination of such strains can happen and people need to think about it,' says Glenn Browning, a veterinary microbiologist at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, in Australia and one of the co-authors on the paper."
The glory (Score:5, Funny)
How glorious it is to be chicken!
To hatch from an egg; To grow feathers!
To scratch the ground with my claws and beak!
To cluck!
Soon the gods themselves will consume my juicy flesh, and they shall exclaim:
"Behold, this chicken is good!"
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, this is great.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon the gods themselves will consume my juicy flesh, and they shall exclaim: "Bitch, this chicken is cold!"
FTFY ;)
This is Australia. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is Australia. (Score:4, Funny)
Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.
I remember that movie, it was called "Night of the Lepus".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is Australia. (Score:5, Informative)
Myxomatosis was deliberately introduced in the 50s...I think the post was referring to the rabbit calicivirus which escaped from Wardang Island quarantine station in 1996. That's actually working quite well so far, in drier areas populations are down by as much as 90% (haven't splattered a bunny on the highway in years), however it remains to be seen whether they'll develop immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
however it remains to be seen whether they'll develop immunity.
Inevitable. Not being 100% universal even in dry areas, and nearly worthless in wet areas like sth Victoria, means that there will always be population reserves, and any bit of resistance is a huge selective advantage. Plus we've virtually stopped follow-up measures, just like we did in the '50s after Myxie.
Given that rabbits mate for life, now would be a good time to mass-release sterile vaccinated rabbits, in a nation-wide extinction program.
Won't happen. No money, no interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Not concern; I've never bothered to avoid rabbits since they're pests, they don't do any damage to the car, and swerving or braking at speed is far more dangerous than just rolling over them. It's merely an anecdotal observation that there just aren't any to hit these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have smaller rabbits there. Where I live (in California) there's rabbits big enough to crack your front plastics. Not an issue in my lifted pickup, is an issue in my stock classic diesel benzo
Re: (Score:2)
They probably are smaller, given the relatively low nutritional value of native vegetation. Didn't seem to harm the Toyota Taragos (Previas in the US I believe) I used to get around in during the 90s, even at 120km/h all you'd feel was a sharp bump, no worse than some of the pot holes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess tenacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure to balance your diet so that you don't suffer from Rabbit starvation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah. Local vegetation (dandelion, hogweed, wild garlic, that sort of thing) when I'm out in the sticks, or if I'm cooking at home it's usually roasted peppers, potatoes and onions, braising the rabbit with woodpigeon breast and pheasant (or partridge, depending on what else I manage to bag).
Re: (Score:2)
Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.
It's a giant slab of land that's largely unpopulated, and every now and then some stupid mother fucker introduces an invasive species... Like rabbits. Keep it in context. That's no different than what they're doing in the United States to control mosquito populations.
Maybe rabbits will evolve into something that eats cane toads?
Re: (Score:3)
in 3..2..1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Field day for anti vaccine people.
The problem is, they are not wrong.
Even if they usually don't see the problem.
It's not a matter of how many people vaccines have saved.
It's a matter of what is put into EACH vial of vaccine, for what purpose it is administered etc. etc. etc.
In this case, and in countless others, more precaution and testing should be performed. And vaccinations should not be the duct tape that keep the health of the poor chicken good enough, the animal should have good living conditions. No
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, they are not wrong.
Nope. They're wrong. So are you. The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not. Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.
So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain. So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.
Chicken Vaccine Waivers (Score:4, Funny)
So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.
So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak? Stupid chickens!
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak?
Farmers that didn't use the vaccine correctly caused a new strain of the virus to emerge. It isn't any worse than the old strains, except that it can infect birds that are immune to the older strains.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.
That would mean the vaccinations are contaminated. That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.
uh what? If there's a problem with the manufacturing process that results in contaminated vaccines then that certainly is an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit, though not an indictment of vaccination as a whole.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not.
This is actually not true. If the exposed proteins in the new strain display functional similarities to the original strain then there may be immune response. Also, I don't think you understand the factors governing transmissibility.
Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.
Again, you're making assumptions here.
So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain.
Vaccination != immunization. Also the fact that someone is not immune to a strain does not mean they will ever be exposed to it, while vaccinating guarantees exposure to whatever crap is in the vaccine.
So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus.
You're making a lot of assumptions her
Re: (Score:2)
[...] you pose a clear and present threat to public health [...]
Jack Ryan is back and this time the bad guys are in his own minivan!
Starring Harrison Ford and Willem Dafoe
Truth needs a soldier.
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)
As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong. So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.
Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor. Most of the time the benefits out weigh the risk, BUT. . . the more careless and cavalier the vaccines makers and advocates are the higher the risks become. Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.
When the pro vaccine crowd become completely blind to the risks and start pushing every vaccine under the sun to everyone for everything its just begging for trouble. Vaccines should be used appropriately to deal with real risks. If the risks of the vaccine outweigh or approach the risk of the pathogen, or the risks of exposure to the pathogen are very low, you pro vaccine bigots can do as much harm or even more than the anti vaccine fanatics. Performing science experiments on millions of people isn't a particularly great idea unless you need to deal with a real risk, and have a well understood solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, add to that that we have not yet seen the fall out from the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong.
Sheesh. Probably. A lot of people's children died or were crippled or paralyzed. A trip back in time would probably cure a lot of anti-vaccine people.
So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.
Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor.
Everything entails risk
Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.
This is an interesting statement that I hear a lot. Vaccines are not a high profit item. maintenance drugs that a person has to take every day for the rest of their lives is where the money is. Plus liability. People do not want relative safety any more, they demand absolute safety. So the end game here may be many children dying becau
Re: (Score:3)
And you vaccine uber alles people are doing what you ALWAYS do. I never even hinted that people shouldn't be vaccinated for communicable diseases that they are likely to encounter, especially where the vaccines are well understood and risks are tolerable.
I am just opposed to people who try to down play the issues with vaccines, pretend they don't exist, engage in the same scare tactics the anti vaccine people indulge in and maul anyone who suggests vaccinations, especially forced vaccinations, should be ap
Re: (Score:2)
Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.
So the makers of a product (that is a once in a lifetime purchase) is automatically not trustworthy because they have a financial interest in everyone using their product?
Re: (Score:3)
A maker like Merck of a product like Gardasil lobbying politicians in an effort to get laws passed to compel children to get a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease so Merck can profit is where the boundaries are being crossed. Especially since its a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease instead of a communicable disease.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
+ 1 insightful.
I am one of those who is pro-vaccination but also pro-choice. Just as I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to end-of-term, neither do I think people should be forced to inject stuff in arms.
I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your position is the fact that vaccines don't work unless a large percentage of the population is vaccinated.
Look what has happened in Nigeria with the effort to eliminate polio.
Cumulative decisions to not vaccinate have significant consequences to the rest of the population.
It is very unlike abortion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know what else doesn't work unless a large percentage of the population does it?
Communism. Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. First they're requiring you to get vaccinated and then the next thing you know they're hauling you off to the gulag.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your position is the fact that vaccines don't work unless a large percentage of the population is vaccinated.
Huh? They work for the people who are vaccinated.
Look what has happened in Nigeria with the effort to eliminate polio.
Cumulative decisions to not vaccinate have significant consequences to the rest of the population.
It is very unlike abortion.
No, that's just like abortion - you just have to prolong your perspective a little bit. Abortion is a 100% effective vaccination against unwanted children. Not a single aborted fetus has had unwanted children. If you think this sounds flippant and irreverent, it doesn't change that logically, it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
They work for the people who are vaccinated.
Most vaccines aren't 100% effective. They reduce the number of people who can get the disease, but don't eliminate the risk. However, if enough of the population is immunised, every person on which the vaccine fails is surrounded by people who are immune.
Likewise, pre-immunised babies may be vulnerable. If almost all adults are immune, they are protected until they can be jabbed. Likewise, when you suffer a prolonged illness that weakens your immune system, you are more vulnerable. An immunised society prot
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell?
What tabloids have you been reading? Whatever drug you're on, your paranoid delusions seem to be worsening.
Smallpox is eradicated. How many people do you know who have had smallpox? How many people have you read about?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's just like abortion - you just have to prolong your perspective a little bit. Abortion is a 100% effective vaccination against unwanted children. Not a single aborted fetus has had unwanted children. If you think this sounds flippant and irreverent, it doesn't change that logically, it's true.
While all analogies are flawed, this one is interesting in that it is completely flawed, with no relation to reality whatsoever. Are steaks a vaccine against cows standing in fields? And vaccines often don't work for the person vaccinated, your statement to the contrary highlights how little you know about this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
>>>The problem with your position is the fact that vaccines don't work unless a large percentage of the population is vaccinated.
Also if we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, we also have the right to force people to maintain a BMI 25, not smoke, not eat trans-fats, and so on. After all, unhealthy persons affects & costs society a great deal of money, therefore we MUST force them to live healthy lifestyles (for the good of civilization). We have the right not just to mandate va
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one am looking forward to my future of a different needle for a different disease every day. That's the point of "eradicating" ad disease.
Why should I care if someone else gets infected? Well when I have a heart attack, if there's a hospital bed shortage due to some idiot that is burdening the health system all because they refused to get a vaccine shot when they were kids then I most damn well will care.
This isn't some theoretical crap either. This has actually happened to me. I was rushed to hospital with some heart problem when I was young. I sat in the waiting room and the nurses strapped the ECG on to me where I sat because there was no enough room in the hospital due to a myriad of other factors.
I'm not saying that people who didn't get vaccinated are at fault, just that they are a burden, a burden on my tax dollars used to provide basic healthcare in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't buy that argument. If I am immunized from polio, what do I care if the unvaccinated idiot gets it? The disease doesn't affect me.
Ayn Rand.... is that you?
Seriously, your callousness is appalling.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? You'd force them to get it?
He's talking about a hypothetical person. People are dying and suffering around the world all the time, I don't see you bursting into tears right now. You seem to have prejacked in anticipation of calling someone Ayn Rand. You're a pious hypocrite.
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Informative)
If everyone takes a vaccine, it doesn't need to make them all completely immune to the disease.
All it needs to do is increase resistance enough that each person, on average, infects less than one other person. At/after this point the number of people with the disease will decrease until noone has to worry about it anymore.
Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a parent. My kids happen to be old enough to have gotten some vaccinations (and are up to date on them), however at one point they weren't old enough to get them yet. Why do I care if someone doesn't get vaccinated? Because if enough people don't get vaccinated, herd immunity breaks down and babies (who aren't old enough to get the vaccinations), the elderly and those who can't get vaccinated for valid medical reasons (e.g. allergies) will get sick. If it was just a matter of only the unvaccinated getting sick, I'd agree with you and would argue for vaccines to be voluntary. However, since people's choices not to vaccinate can lead to the death of other people, I think it is well within the rights of the government to require them for all people (except for those with valid medical reasons).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that no vaccine is 100% efficient, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.
You do realize that you then accept these un-vaccinated children giving the diseases they contract to children who for one reason or another cannot receive the vaccines and that some will die?
Personal freedom is good and all, but your right to drive a car anywhere you want ends when you run over me. It's funny/sad that people clamored for these vaccines, and all but the nut cases really really wanted universal vaccination when this whole thing started. That was probably because looking at their children
Re: (Score:2)
>>>You do realize that you then accept these un-vaccinated children giving the diseases they contract to children who for one reason or another cannot receive the vaccines and that some will die?
>>>
>>>Personal freedom is good and all, but your right to drive a car anywhere you want ends when you run over me.
That is true. However if we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, we also have the right to force people to maintain a BMI equal or below 25, not smoke, not eat trans-f
Re: (Score:2)
+ 1 insightful.
I am one of those who is pro-vaccination but also pro-choice. Just as I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to end-of-term, neither do I think people should be forced to inject stuff in arms.
I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.
I believe this is pretty much what already happens. The ignorant parents read or watch Jenny McCarthy and decide vaccines are evil and bad and cause devastating neurological injuries on a very frequent basis. Too bad for the kid, their parents have let them down (and others who can't be vaccinated, and therefore need to rely on herd immunity).
As far as I know no-one forces these people to do anything. They're still selfish assholes though, and it's behaviour with a body count that's always on the rise. Sadl
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry but that is baloney.
I don't care what subset you read. The fact is many of these criticisms are made up. Others are flat out fraudulent, or are put forward with corrupt intent like the Wakefield Lancet article. Some others are valid in that they point out real defects in the technology.
However not one of these criticisms are applicable to the point where it is morally valid to refuse to get a child vaccinated unless the child has a medical condition that makes the vaccination dangerous, such as c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you would familiarize yourself with the most intelligent critics (some of whom are actually pro-vaccination in principle),
Thing is, this reminds me of the Australian Vaccine Network, who were "pro-vaccine" in principle and then basically outed as fundamentally anti-vax nutters. Given this, I wouldn't be overly taken in by someone claiming to be pro-vaccine. In this instance we're looking at a disingenous attempt to make themselves seem more reasonable than they are (at least in the case of the AVN, I'm not sure who these other people you're referring to are).
That said any reasonable person wants vaccines to be safe as possible
Did the chickens go autistic? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have billions and billions of units almost everywhere the adaptation happens quite quickly. It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world or is there always a feedback mechanism that keeps them leashed. Traditionally viruses have kept the population sizes in control diminishing themselves in the process. The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world"
A virus, as per the very definition, requires a living host for its metabolic processes.
So it's either not a virus or no, it won't eventually conquer the world.
"The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest."
If "we", the true living forms, have survived about a billion years the attacks of virus, I'd bet our odds can't be so
Re:Not very stable -- good survivability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that antibiotics do not kill virii - part of the problem with overuse of antibiotics is the general belief that they help with viral infections. Let me repeat...... antibiotics DO NOT kill virii.
what's that you said? antibiotics kill virii but only if you use the whole bottle?
Re:Not very stable -- good survivability (Score:4, Insightful)
Combined? (Score:3)
They combined more than one chicken vaccine to form a bigger, badder defense against evil?
Go Poultron Force!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the possibility of creating new viroses by the combination of vaccines were already well known. I have no quotation, but I always tought that was the reason people with the flu are advided to not take anti-flu vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
I admittedly don't know a lot about immunology, but I do know that once you have a disease the vaccine is useless. A vaccine is a training sample, meant to be employed in advance so your body knows what to target before the infection gets serious. If you're already infected you've got plenty of data all over the place, you just recognized it too late.
Viruses can most definitely combine in weird ways. There are even these things called coviruses (example [wikipedia.org]), that depend on the presence of other viruses to infe
A few obligatory references, yada yada yada (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't cross the strains! You get a Megazord of a virus.
No, you get one of the ingredients for smores.
First Thought (Score:2)
CC.
Deadly Bird Flu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Herpes, the same family as cold sores that keep coming back and back or genital herpes tha keep coming back and back or chicken pox, that comes back a shingles 40 years later; herpese is like cheap lugage, once you get it, you're stuck with it forever. If any virus is going to get it's DNA mixed with another organisms DNA it's one of the the herpes viruses.
blame statisticians! (Score:2)
It is the sole duty of a statistician in science to prove nonabsolute with a "confidence" that makes it seem absolute.
In this case it would appear that th vaccines contained virii/particles that were "statistically not replicating" but were actually doing so (else no recombination could have even survived).
Statisticians give confidence, but that confidence should always be heeded and with caveat.
Jenny.... (Score:2)
Jenny McCarthy warned us......
A pox! (Score:3)
A pox on those chickens, I say! A pox!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you catch it if you eat a chicken?
No. Cross-species viruses are rare... Viruses co-opt cells to produce more viruses by injecting their own viral code into the DNA/RNA of the host cell. As a rule, those genetic sequences aren't "cross platform" any more than binary code on a computer is. Cross-species bacterial infection is far more common, as bacterium contains all the materials required to reproduce... it only requires a hospitable environment.
Are aussie chickens exported? (If you order chicken at an Outback steakhouse do you get a bird grown in the USA?
Chickens are raised in almost every country, and exported between them routinely. So yes, it's p
Re:Does it affect humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Cross-species viruses are actually quite common, and it has nothing to do with the genetic sequences either; DNA is DNA and the code is evolved to build viruses. Usually the factor that prevents a virus from being cross species is that the surface protiens of the virus doesn't fit the receptors sites, but that can also occure in the same species. I'd be surprized if chickens are exported from Australia to the US, the cost of keeping them frozen durring shipment from Australia would be considerable and chicken just isn't that expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's very cheap to ship someone already infected.
Same mechanism does (Score:2)
It is the close proximity of pigs, ducks, and people on Chinese farms that is a major source of flu virus mutations.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the fifty-yard distance between the chicken coop and every other building on the farm. (The old outhouse was midway between there and the house.)
Re:Does it affect humans (Score:5, Informative)
Totally off topic as to the article but relevant to vegetarian restaurant options. If you don't want to eat any meat products avoid Cracker Barrel. Everything there, from the mac and cheese to the collard greens has ham in it.
We learned this when we stopped there on a family trip with our Muslim brother in law. I think in the end all he dined on was bread-sticks and coke.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Things without pork at Cracker Barrel:
Eggs, Toast, Hashbrown casserole, Biscuits, Jelly, Apple Butter, Fried Apples, Turkey Sausage, Grits, Chicken Fried Chicken, Chicken Fried Steak, Fried Chicken Tenderloin, Buttermilk Pancakes, Pecan Pancakes, Blueberry Pancakes, French Toast, Eggs-in-the-Basket, Yogurt Parfait, Granola with Fruit and Yogurt, Oatmeal with Fried Apples, Oatmeal with Pecans, Oatmeal with Raisins, Oatmeal with Bananas, Blueberry Muffin, Bran Muffin, Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Special K, Fruit L
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just didn't bother reading the menu very well or asking the server any questions about the dishes.
You have a lot to learn about Muslim dietary restrictions.
Pork is the least of them. Was that turkey killed in the proper fashion?
Re: (Score:2)
If one is unsure that a given meat may be haram, the word of a non-Muslim is not sufficient to determine this.
When travelling in a non-Muslim country, or a country where Muslim-operated food businesses are the norm, it is generally best to eat only scaled fish and vegetarian dishes, as these are generally halal automatically. Do be careful to verify as best as you can that the fish have scales. Generally modern fishing operations will only keep live catch, so that is less of a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
If one is unsure that a given meat may be haram, the word of a non-Muslim is not sufficient to determine this.
When travelling in a non-Muslim country, or a country where Muslim-operated food businesses are the norm, it is generally best to eat only scaled fish and vegetarian dishes, as these are generally halal automatically. Do be careful to verify as best as you can that the fish have scales. Generally modern fishing operations will only keep live catch, so that is less of a concern.
So you don't have to say a prayer and kill the fish with a single cut to its throat??
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. Fish are halal if they are taken from the water alive and have scales. Butchering in the same manner as meat and poultry, as you describe, are recommended but not required.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively: The server lied to us because she hates Muslims and was just trying to get us to give up and go somewhere else. Because trust me, we asked plenty of questions, and invariably, her response was "it has pork or pork fat in it."
Also, this was close to 10 years ago, which admittedly I failed to mention. I'm sure their menu could have changed significantly in that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of total virus load in human populations, the number of zoonotic viruses (as most of the organisms on that list are not viruses) is incredibly small.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Barack Obama is as Australian as Outback steakhouse is.
So it's Kenyan? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a lot of people don't think a virus has quite enough juice to qualify as being alive.
Re: (Score:3)
Viruses are not decidedly living nor dead as far as we can tell. They are more like parasites to living cells but cannot be defined as living by themselves as they do nothing a living being does (in particular eating). They are "deactivated" in a vaccine, i.e., they have their most "toxic" part removed.
Also you should not have been downvoted for asking a genuine question.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"vaccines, by definition, are dead viruses"
No, they aren't.
Vaccines, by definition, are agents that induce immunity to a given virus infection with a lower health cost than the real threat. It can be a "dead" virus, it can be an attenuated one, it can be protein group... as long as it produces the intended effect, it's a vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
No rational person ever said vaccines were perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that the benefits doesn't vastly outweigh the risks for almost everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't mean that the benefits doesn't vastly outweigh the risks
Even that part is not obvious, with vaccines like MMRV which may delay the outbreak of diseases to adulthood instead of keeping it restrained to childhood as it was. But slahshdotters don't like complex answers. It's so much more comfortable when everything can be expressed in terms of radioactive bananas.
Re: (Score:2)
Line up for your Flu Shots!
Of course it can, just in the same way that all the current variations of flu can mix and match if you catch more than one of them at once. On the balance I assume it's safer to vaccinate and minimise the possibility of this happening.