Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (60853)	10/3/2002 11:09:59 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

This article falls into the category of "who knows what to believe anymore." Does anyone know what they're doing? Fairfax Mosquitoes Test Positive High Rate for Malaria Suggests False Results By a Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 3, 2002; Page B01 Fairfax County health authorities said yesterday that a pool of mosquitoes near Herndon has tested positive for malaria, a finding that federal researchers and independent academics said adds to their growing suspicion that the tests could be giving false results. Fairfax officials said the positive mosquitoes were trapped about five miles from the Sugarland Run area where two Loudoun County teenagers were infected with malaria over the summer. Loudoun officials, relying on the same kind of test, announced last week that they had found two pools of malaria-positive mosquitoes elsewhere in the county. Experts are puzzled because the proportion of mosquitoes testing positive for malaria in Virginia is greater than might be found in developing countries where the infection rate among humans is high, according to Robert Gwadz, a top malaria expert at the National Institutes of Health. "I don't believe it," Gwadz said. "I think it's a false positive." The doubts have complicated efforts by local officials who are struggling to address what could be a serious public health threat. "We want to make sure the results we're putting out are accurate results," said David Goodfriend, the Loudoun County health director. He added that one reason the county has not sprayed for adult mosquitoes is that they don't want to have a "knee-jerk" reaction without getting confirmation first. But, he added, "even if the other tests come up negative, it doesn't mean that the tests we did here were incorrect." Specialists at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said yesterday that they are investigating whether there are problems with the so-called VecTest that contractor Clarke Environmental Mosquito Control has used in the region. The test, developed for the Army, has proved highly effective in trials but had never been used in the United States before last month, according to CDC specialists. "Based on a lot of field experience on malaria, especially in Central and South America, we wouldn't expect to see this many infected mosquitoes based on the limited number we've tested," said Robert A. Wirtz, chief of the CDC's Entomology Branch. "It's still in the realm of possibility, but really highly unlikely." John Neely, an official from Clarke, said 120 pools of anopheline mosquitoes, the kind that can carry malaria, have been tested in Virginia since early September. Three pools tested positive for malaria using the VecTest, which is highly accurate, he said. But he acknowledged there could be a problem with the test. "We have to pull out all the stops to make sure the data is unimpeachable," Neely said, "and that there's no contamination of the testing process." The company has forwarded some materials to a state laboratory in Richmond for further testing. But those follow-up tests have been inconclusive, state and federal officials said. One problem is caused by the VecTest itself, which uses a dipstick to measure the presence of a protein associated with the parasite that causes malaria. Technicians crush the mosquitoes, add a buffer liquid, then put in the stick. A horizontal line will show up on the stick if malaria is present. But the stick also absorbs the genetic material from the insects, and specialists from the CDC and the state lab are trying to find a way to extract that material from the stick for follow-up tests, Wirtz said. Malaria specialists said another reason they question the test results is that no more people are known to have been infected with malaria locally since the two in Loudoun became ill. Fairfax officials said malaria was recently diagnosed in a woman from the Herndon area, but they believe it is likely she was infected on a trip overseas. "You'd have to have a raging epidemic to have that many infected ones in a small sample," said Ronald Ward, a retired malaria specialist from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and the former editor of the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. "I'd be very suspicious of results like that." Andrew Spielman, a professor of tropical diseases at Harvard University, said officials are stuck in a difficult position with potentially high stakes. If the tests are accurate and there is a widespread presence of malaria-infected mosquitoes, "it would call for . . . aerial spraying of ultra-low volume insecticide," Spielman said. But it is difficult to trust the tests. "There's a real conundrum there," he said. Gloria Ayensu, a doctor with the Fairfax County Health Department, said a blast-fax has been sent to all of the doctors and care providers in the county urging them to consider malaria as they examine sick patients, whether they've been traveling out of the country or not. Officials said the Herndon area pool of mosquitoes that tested positive was found near Mustang Drive. Officials in Alexandria reported yesterday that their tests for malaria-infected mosquitoes came up negative. Maryland officials said they began testing yesterday but will not have results for a week because they are using a different method. © 2002 The Washington Post Company

To: Lane3 who wrote (60853)	10/3/2002 11:15:06 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I have no idea why this is so difficult. I said at the outset that morality is a set of ideas by which society governs its members, and that we internalize these values and precepts in order to become moral persons. I said that we can improve upon what is given to some extent through education and reflection, particularly by clarifying reasons to dissent, in whole or in part, from the practices of one's society, though in terms that are intelligible within that context. I said that as society evolves in various ways, there is a change in morality, and that the better the society, in terms of providing increasing numbers opportunities to live in a more "humanized" environment, the better its morality, even if there are still blemishes. I said that there was a hypothetical point where the process would end, and we would reach "moral objectivity", that is, the best set of values underpinning the optimum society. I said that even were we not there, we were in a position to judge ourselves superior to most other societies in history, and therefore to consider our values the best available now. Asked about how I related this to my belief in God, I said that to the extent God intervenes in history, it is within the limitations of the people He is dealing with, and that therefore, even giving the Bible some credence, one has to understand that it is told from a primitive point of view. I also noted that, of course, I thought any intervention would be to push us in the direction of social improvement, with the eventual goal of reaching the best society. However, I never even intimated that we get values directly from God, or that we had a pipeline to Him as arbiter, so I don't know what you are talking about. As I said, I am starting with moral empiricism: this is the way that people gain morality, by internalizing values they are taught by their parents, teachers, and other sources of social authority. The source of duty is the expectation imposed upon one by society. Since one internalizes these standards, if one falls short, one feels guilt or shame. Even defensiveness is premised upon feeling guilt or shame, and trying to combat it. However, sometimes one dissents on a basis which makes sense within the moral framework given, either in limited cases or overall. This is the first origin of moral criticism, with the chance of improvement. Additionally, the society adapts its values to new situations, finding by experience what works better to make it dynamic and successful. Finally, philosophers and other thinkers reflect on the basis and character of ethics, and contribute various insights, which may be used to further improve a society. In one sense, you are the arbiter of duty, in your own case. In another sense, society is the final arbiter, over time......