In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10256
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
tartufe 05/01/2009 12:38 AM Report
Makes one wonder about one of the tv screemers observation that animals (pigs et al) are treated inhumanely. Their immune systems take a hit, consequently, which makes for transmission of their deseases to humans potentially greater. But profits trump all else. Ask Citigroup.
Rafal 04/28/2009 09:40 PM Report
Interesting Thank you
GQtaste 04/28/2009 05:21 PM Report
Way too serious a topic to just give a few minutes to. Like the first person said, and when you a dude that played some kind of flute and doesn't even speak English.
SolarProf 04/28/2009 03:54 PM Report
Re Laurie Garrett's statement that 100 million deaths occurred based on a 2% virulence (death rate). The numbers just seem to be wrong here, given that a 2% virulence would imply a 50-fold infection base, or 5 billion (aka 5,000 million in the UK) people infected. My understanding is that there were fewer than 5 billion humans alive at the time, let alone those thought to be infected. Could someone help me with these stats?
REMant 04/28/2009 01:10 PM Report
I don't know about the flu, but thought this discussion rapidly spun out of control. The question most everyone focused on yesterday, which I also asked myself, was why are the cases here milder than those in Mexico? My assumption, and I presume the assumption of others asking that question, was that it is to be compared with the Avian flu outbreak in China, which, it seems, affected those having direct contact with the animals much more than those who got it by contact with humans.