In article <4emis6$rrf at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edregis at aol.com (EdRegis) wrote:
> It wouldn't *need* to mutate to be spread by aerosols in the way Jahrling
> made Ebola Zaire "airborne." You take any virus and spray it out of an
> atomizer down the throat or into the eyes of some animal, including a
> person, and you're going to have "airborne transmission." Is this news?
I'm going to have to side with Ed here. Spraying a virus down the throat
or in the eyes of an animal is not great science if you ask me. I'm might
be starting a "good science" flame war here, but I just have to wonder
about the significance of such an experiment.... sounds like
phenomenology to me.
How does this experiment bear ANY resemblance to what happens in nature??
There seems to be little real signifigance to this study. I read this
paper yesterday and was left saying "so what?". IMHO the study proves
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
University of Missouri-Columbia
C601591 at showme.missouri.edu