[newplagiarist]

I generally have to call into question the merits of an author when they unnecessarily distinguish between humans and other animals. Especially when that isn't the truly interesting item coming from the research.

The two genuinely interesting items from the research are that it uses a yet-to-be identified means to enter the host's cell. The other being that it can still infect any of the probable original hosts of the virus, even though that has not been previously documented in SARS.

Virus' being able to infect different species is not that new or note worthy and I believe the title of the article is therefore poorly thought-out and misleading. It's not even new or noteworthy for SARS which had the ability to infect multiple species.

[lambersley]

As a lay person, when I read of viruses, I look for ways I can contract such a thing. In the example of West Nile, I know to stay away from mosquito-prone places. For creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (variant of mad cow), I knew to cut down on my intake of beef. I think its important to distinguish between humans and other animals for this reason.

And having lived through SARS in Toronto, I can tell you that many people didn't have chicken on their tables during that summer.