Slashdot Mirror


Zika Virus Officially Causes Rare Microcephaly Birth Defects, CDC Says (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Wednesday the Zika virus causes microcephaly and other birth defects. "This study marks a turning point in the Zika outbreak. It is now clear that the virus causes microcephaly," CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden said. The CDC previously said it was likely the virus in pregnant women was the cause of the rare birth defect that results in an underdeveloped brain and that more evidence and research were needed to conclusively say it is causal. "We started using criteria about a month ago to see which ones had been met and which ones had not been met. We wanted to do this in a systematic and calculated way," said Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, lead author of the New England Journal of Medicine special report. There's was also no alternative explanation to account for the increase in these congenital defects among women who had the Zika virus during pregnancy. The CDC says they are not yet ready to conclude the virus causes Guillain-Barre syndrome. The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported more than 1,000 cases of microcephaly and other fetal malformations believed to be associated with the Zika virus from six countries.

106 comments

  1. DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a homemade recipe for DDT? Sorry birdies, people come first.

    1. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DDT is actually extremely safe. The president of Monsanto actually drank it during a press conference. It was fear mongering that got it pulled, not any sort of real science.

    2. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And thanks to the anti-DDT FUD, millions of people perished from polio in Argentina. All of these environmental actions always have unintended consequences.

    3. Re: DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the guy who invented leaded gas washed his hands in it in a press conference to "prove" it was safe.

      How stupid to take that as proof something isnt dangerous.

    4. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thanks to the anti-DDT FUD, millions of people perished from polio in Argentina. All of these environmental actions always have unintended consequences.

      Polio transmitted by insects? You cannot be serious.

    5. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that was a troll.

    6. Re:DDT by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      It would be true if he had said "malaria"

    7. Re:DDT by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Umm no Potsy it is not safe: "EPA states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity"

      Gotta love dumb-asses...

    8. Re: DDT by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, DDT won't actively fly around seeking you out to bite you and poison you with it's toxic effects though. Not saying that environmental contamination might be more harmful, as I don't know and am too lazy to look it up, living in gulf coast Texas though I can assure you those little flying hypodermic needles certainly will.

    9. Re:DDT by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It would be true if he had said "malaria"

      Trouble wit DDT at base is that it is just another 'cide. While the tinfoil hat and chemtrail crowd hold it up as some sort of magic cure-all, we would have done is killed off birds, and insects would have developed resistance.

      DDT isn't majick, folks.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a homemade recipe for DDT?

      Yes. It rather simple to make, actually. All you need is household bleach, household ammonia, a copper penny, a drinking straw, and a suitably sized container. Put the ingredients in the container, then blow bubbles in it with the straw until crystals form. Then dissolve the crystals in a 100:1 ratio with water and spray it in the affected area.

    11. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "DDT is actually extremely safe."

      It isn't overly toxic to humans with intermittent exposure, but its a far way from "extremely safe". It has been linked to miscarriage, certain cancers, birth defects, endocrine problems, etc though in pretty low rates and requiring moderate to heavy exposure. However that is not why its use was limited, it has significant environmental impacts, primarily being the thinning of egg shells in many bird populations resulting failed offspring (cracked/crushed eggs) and thinning of shells in many shelled marine organisms. Used reasonably it isn't all that bad, the problem is with morons who thing we should spray the stuff on wildlife habitats like it was water.

    12. Re:DDT by skoony · · Score: 0

      DDT was not the cause of thinning egg shells which was primarily were found in raptors. The real reason for finding nest's with cracked shells is it was the way farmers controlled the populations of these birds as they were considered varmints back in the day. State fish and gaming and pollution control in general as we know it today was vastly underfunded and overburdened back then. In states with a large agricultural base things were overlooked. Then you have raccoons, skunks and other egg eating predators.

    13. Re:DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and people used to do demonstrations in which they touched liquid mercury to prove how safe it was, after all it was the Chinese secret for immortality, so using it to make hats was perfectly reasonable. But then real science discovered the concept of "prolonged exposure."

      And yet here we are, with morons like you unable to distinguish between corporate propaganda, and "real science."

  2. An expected conclusion by Chikungunya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the beginning it was all very fuzzy and cases very uncharacteristic for viruses of the same family, but the research that has been done in the last few months is admirable, it is now completely clear that, even if it was unexpected, Zika acts like its mild fever type of related virus in adults (like Dengue and Yellow Fever) but becomes much more like the neurocentric cousins of the family in embryos (like West Nile and Japanese Encephalitis). Anybody that is following the reports, even if only the titles, was expecting this conclusion from the CDC and WHO.

    1. Re:An expected conclusion by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      A virus is what most likely will take out humanity given enough time.

      The Zika virus is just a warning.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:An expected conclusion by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Zippy the Pinhead will be amused.

      But no-one here is old enough to know who he was.

      Are we having fun yet?

      Taco sauce on Ding-Dongs . . . yummy!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re: An expected conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's why they created it.

    4. Re:An expected conclusion by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Viruses can kill of large percentages of populations, but they are never 100% effective. Humanity would survive.

    5. Re:An expected conclusion by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Some of us are old enough. And Zippy is still in print in some newspapers, though not that many of us pick up real newspapers anymore. For anyone using Emacs, there is still an "Esc-x psychoanalyze-pinhead" command to crossconnect a Zippy quote generator to the old Eliza chatbot.

    6. Re: An expected conclusion by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      Who created it? Why? Surely not to reduce the human population. Even the death totals from WWII was only a blip in the chart. You would need something along the line of 1918 flu epidemic - and it would have to hit the whole world at roughly the same time - for there to be something that *may* affect the population.

      Put it another way. Even 100,000,000 deaths spread out across the world would do little to population figures.

      At 7 billion people 70,000,000 is one percent of the total population.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    7. Re:An expected conclusion by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Well so far in the millions of years in human evolution this hasn't happened. Viruses actually evolve to not kill their host as this is a kind of evolutionary suicide.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    8. Re:An expected conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Viruses actually evolve to not kill their host as this is a kind of evolutionary suicide.

      That fact does not help us. Viruses evolve by having the unsuccessfull variants die out. If such an 'unsuccessful' virus wipes out humanity, it will die out - but only after killing all of us. We can't leave it to evolution on this one.

      The question is - can the next killer bug decimate us faster than Big Pharma invents new stuff?

    9. Re:An expected conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but as the documentary The Walking Dead has shown us, what would become of that humanity?

    10. Re:An expected conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that they'll be able to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  3. taken by swamp fever pee brain disease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    screw that, & the obviously out of control 'weather' adverts too.... cease fire.. hand in hand we stand

  4. drunken mosquitoes abusing unhomogenized bovines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an amino unbalance arising from the zombie gmo banana factories? yuk..

  5. Re:drunken mosquitoes abusing unhomogenized bovine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And one of the victims posts on slashdot!

  6. Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a turning point, as they a) pretty much knew this cased the problem and b) still can't do anything about it. A turning point is when they come up with a vaccine. Good thing the CDC director thinks in 140 character headlines.

    1. Re:Turning point? water is wet by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am still waiting for some information on why the Zika virus causes these defects. So far all that has been established is that they are linked. That isn't good enough to prove a vaccine is even the correct answer. I am not virologist or a neuroscientist or immunologist, or even a medical professional. Still for all the information I have got on it could be that an elevated presence of Zika anti-bodies causes birth defects!

      While a vaccine is 'likely' to be the right solution and therefore should be worked on its entirely possible that all the issues are actually auto-immune triggered by Zika. If that proved to be the case given Zika is harmless most of the time to adults, a vaccination campaign might be exactly the wrong public health move.

      Caution is needed here.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Turning point? water is wet by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not virologist or a neuroscientist or immunologist, or even a medical professional.

      No need to mention that, t was obvious from the rest of your post. Certain viruses are able to attack stem cells, some of them cause miscarriages, some just damage the cell and cause severe defects. Google is your friend, anti-vaxxers are not your friend.

    3. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know anything about diseases that cause specific elevated anti-bodies which cause problems for the host, but like to learn more. What are diseases where this applies?

    4. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      The simplest answer to your concern is that if everyone is vaccinated then the virus can't spread and then you don't have to worry about your suggested virally induced auto-immune syndrome. It should be noted that the mother's immune system cannot infiltrate to the fetus, although her antibodies can, so an autoimmune syndrome within the fetus is extremely unlikely. The reason the fetuses are affected more (by most any disease that can reach them) is because they have a poor immune response. Given its viral family it is most likely that the virus is directly attacking the fetal neural tissue.

    5. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Type 1 diabetes, which afflicts over 1 million Americans. It seems to be triggered by flu infections, with strong suspicions of the Coxsackie B flu virus, but it doesn't seem to be a single infection. One infection, followed by another, seems to trip an auto-immune trigger and the patient's own immune system destroys the insulin producing beta cells. It's also why transplants have never worked well: Without ridiculous amounts of immuno-suppresents, the patient's own system destroys the beta cells of transplants, even if the organ is othewise accepted.

      Curing the auto-immune problem also seems to cure the Type 1 diabetes, which is *very* exciting treatment being tested now by Dr. Faustman's lab at Mass. General Hospital. The treatment involves using the BCG vaccine, which is nominally for tuberculosis and has been used for that since 1921.

      The use of this vaccine to treat Type 1 diabetes didn't get noticed because it requires small doses, daily, for roughly a month, with very tight blood sugar control. Very tight blood sugar control was very difficult until glucometers and quick acting insulins were developed, and no one was administering it daily for a month. Dr. Faustman's lab was *trying* to make pancreatic cell transplants more effective, and were *shocked* when lab animals no longer required insulin. It's very exciting, they're in their second round of human testing right now. A successful treatment could save billions of dollars annually: between glucose test strips and insulin, simply maintaining my diabetes treatment is roughly $5/day for me. Add in an insulin pump or continuous glucose sensor as I get older and less sensitive to my blood sugar changes, and it could become $20/day.

    6. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially given the evidence that the birth defects were caused by insecticides.

    7. Re:Turning point? water is wet by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Wait...what's wrong with a vaccination campaign regardless of whether or not it causes microcephaly? It would prevent the disease from making someone sick. I fail to see what is wrong with that. I'd be delighted to one day hear that we could vaccinate against every pathogen known to man.

    8. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus points for explaining how the antibodies can be the problem, considering the apparent lack of zika-induced microencephaly in South-East Asia where just about everyone has these antibodies.

    9. Re:Turning point? water is wet by bazorg · · Score: 1

      There isn't much money in preventing disease, but in parts of the world where healthcare is a job for the free market, this sort of thing is a political issue that attracts a lot of passionate people who shout at one another on FB and blogs. Big Pharma must secretly love those who oppose child vaccination campaigns and public healthcare provision.

    10. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually reading the "doctors'" report indicates they have no evidence at all for the link they are suggesting. They're hand-waving and claiming connections that the evidence contra-indicates.

    11. Re:Turning point? water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been papers published that find Zika in the brain of fetuses and Zika has been shown to replicate in neural tissue. Development is a very sensitive process that can be changed dramatically by slight changes in protein localization and abundance during asymetric division, let alone cytotoxicity or inflammation caused by a viral infection.

      An incredibly early-onset viral-induced beakdown of self-tolerance and resulting autoimmune disease in a developing fetus is much less likely than the virus directly causing problems.

  7. One thing no-one has said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is whether a woman who has contracted Zika and subsequently recovered continues to be at risk of having a child with microcephaly?

    Does the virus get completely eliminated by the immune system in time, or is someone infected for life and can never have kids without the microcephaly risk?

    1. Re:One thing no-one has said... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I have been waiting to hear a clear statement from CDC on this as well. Its highly relevant information for a lot of people considering traveling.

      At least until the virus becomes more active in the Southern US, which it likely will anywhere. The carrier mosquito is present. Its also an STD but given how it presents no different than a cold in adults it would be pretty much impossible to try and prevent infected individuals form traveling here.

      If the risk isn't mostly gone post removing from the infection, I would think it would demand a much more aggressive response in terms of pesticide use.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:One thing no-one has said... by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Replying to my own post!

      They have updated the page.
      http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregna...

      According to the last Q:A after the virus has cleared from the blood you appear to not be at elevated risk for birth defects.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:One thing no-one has said... by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      They're still trying to figure this sort of thing out. Likewise it is sexually transmissible from men to women but they don't really know for how long. Current recommendations are to use barrier prophylactics for 6 months, but they're just guessing. Once a vaccine is available it would be likely (although perhaps not certain) that being vaccinated and having occasional boosters would prevent any latent infection from blooming.

  8. More important than Ebola research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how is this worse than Ebola?

    1. Re: More important than Ebola research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It affects white people.

    2. Re:More important than Ebola research? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Caused by mosquito bite.

    3. Re: More important than Ebola research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Mexicans are white - as Europeans see them. Just look at the office types who aren't out in the sun all day. Perhaps Americans see this differently. How about Spaniards or Italians? French? People can be very different from the english-speaking and still be white.

    4. Re: More important than Ebola research? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Do you know how much money went into Ebola research? Really?

    5. Re: More important than Ebola research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Mexicans are white - as Europeans see them. Just look at the office types who aren't out in the sun all day. Perhaps Americans see this differently. How about Spaniards or Italians? French? People can be very different from the english-speaking and still be white.

      Thanks for your condescension. English speaking like in Nigeria?

      Signed: Latin American German descendant.

    6. Re: More important than Ebola research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I'm a Spenic [Hispanic person not in custody] and probly whiter than you.

  9. Build a wall by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need to put screen doors in the wall on the southern border to keep the mosquitoes out.

    And make Aedes aegypti pay for it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And make Aedes aegypti pay for it.

      Now that's one extinction I'd like to cause. Damned mosquitoes.

    2. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-mosquito laser turrets would be an easier sell, especially since it wouldn't cost all that much to cover the entire southern US border with them: 2000 mi / 0.0378 mi turret interval * $50 estimated unit cost * 5 (maintenance/fuckery modifier) ~= $13 million, excluding any power requirements.

  10. Re:drunken mosquitoes abusing unhomogenized bovine by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    You would think we'd at LEAST get some actual biological Zombies out of this. . .

  11. Zike immunity by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have an office in Singapore and I do spend part of my time in South East Asia

    Zika is no stranger to South East Asia - and in fact, when Zika was first discovered in Uganda in the 1970's, a 'discovery' followed, testing human blood from other tropical regions all around the world and it was found that (back in the 1970's) that human blood collected in the South East Asian region already showed signs of Zika immunity

    True, in the South East Asian region (from the Philippines to Thailand, from Indonesia to Vietnam), there were babies born with signs of microcephaly born from time to time - but because there were no 'sudden increase' of the number of babies born with microcephaly, there was no concerted effort looking for the microcephalic babies

    In other words, the thousands of babies born with microcephaly in South American countries could largely be caused by the lack of natural immunity to the Zika virus of the people living there

    Perhaps 100 or 200 years from now the number of 'Zike Babies' would drop, as more and more people acquired the immunity of the Zika virus via natural means

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Zike immunity by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Even if your theory is right, what do you say to the current pregnant mothers?

      "Don't worry, you'll get a microcephalic baby, but that's for better good so don't worry, in 100-200 years there will be enough immunity in South America. We should even bring Zika to the US to make sure the population gets immunity."

    2. Re:Zike immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say: "Abort."

    3. Re:Zike immunity by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The Darwinian natural means of acquiring immunity to Zika is for those babies born with microcephaly to not have children - on a 100 to 200 year time scale, that can happen.

    4. Re: Zike immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if we could just get Facebook users to not have children. Then my great grandchildren can live in peace.

    5. Re:Zike immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you Cecile Richards

    6. Re:Zike immunity by brianerst · · Score: 1

      One difference may be that people native to the Americas have a far more limited number of human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) which are involved in innate immunity. In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann goes over this issue in some detail. HLA diversity is an important aspect to innate immunity - each antigen is capable of "seeing" a specific type of foreign protein and generating an immune response for it. The more kinds of HLAs an individual has, the more diseases he or she can fight off quickly, and the more kinds of HLAs a population has the more likely that a disease outbreak will be limited.

      Native Americans have problems on both ends - typical "Old World" humans have 35 different HLAs they can inherit while typical "New World" humans only have 17. Old World humans also tend to have a few more HLAs per individual and their populations are very diverse - perhaps as few as 1 in 200 will share the same set of HLAs. New World humans, on the other hand, are far more clustered - as many as 1/3 of all native South Americans have identical HLA profiles.

      New World humans may therefore be uniquely susceptible to Zika and its spread may become more widespread - there may not be any innate herd immunity to the virus. If Zika falls into a HLA pattern that simply doesn't exist in South America, native peoples will be in grave danger.

    7. Re:Zike immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect it to go faster than that.

      Likely the immunity is due to 'natural vaccination' that is, being infected and fighting it off.

      As Zika spreads, more people will be infected, and thus more people will become immune. Since Zika is not much of an issue in SE Asia and Africa, it stands to reason that most people are infected young, before they are of breeding age (the only age that seems to matter much with Zika). Thus, it stands to reason that within the next 10-20 years we will have Zika 'solved' for us, by simply having reached the same steady state in the Americas as exists elsewhere.

  12. It's for real this time, I promise! by ThatBeDank · · Score: 1

    Hey guys! You need to watch out for SARS, H1N1, H151, mad cow, swine flu, Ebola, Zika, etc! It's really dangerous.

    When there is a real dangerous pandemic the idiots who cry wolf at the WHO and media will cause the untold deaths of millions.

    1. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have all of those. And I just coughed on your kids.

    2. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone forgetting that malaria was common in North America as far north as southern Quebec up until 100 years ago when swamp draining and spraying became the norm. Simply because you don't think it's actually a problem or "a real dangerous pandemic" doesn't mean it won't cause serious problems for general healthcare.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by mrmaster · · Score: 1

      Hey guys! You need to watch out for SARS, H1N1, H151, mad cow, swine flu, Ebola, Zika, etc! It's really dangerous.

      When there is a real dangerous pandemic the idiots who cry wolf at the WHO and media will cause the untold deaths of millions.

      For those of us in an infected area and are trying to conceive I say thank you for your thought-inspired wisdom. The caring you show for others is your gift to mankind. Let me say one more thing. THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart. I mean it. Without sarcasm like yours life would not be worth it.

    4. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked SARS doesn't cause microcephaly.

    5. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Montreal had malaria ONE YEAR when the winter did not get cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes. You're really cherry picking your data here.

    6. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Montreal had malaria ONE YEAR when the winter did not get cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes. You're really cherry picking your data here.

      Don't be an idiot. That was 1832, fun reminder time that malaria was the "bad air" disease and was also labeled as "swamp disease or lake disease." The further you dig in historical records, the more you find that people had it and the symptoms were missed because they didn't know what they were looking at. Plus there were a lot worse in terms of diseases during that period, like small pox, dysentery. Both of those were endemic during the building of the canal with people all over Upper and parts of Lower Canada showing symptoms of it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is spraying bullets into a crowd, you take them down because they're really dangerous. Once you've done that, you don't have to keep taking them down again because the danger has passed.

      Each of the diseases you mentioned triggered reactions designed to stop/control the disease, because the diseases were really dangerous. Without those actions, the diseases would have continued to spread and kill more and more people. Every one of those diseases had/has the potential to explode and cause massive casualties if we ignore them.

    8. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WHO can't win either way. When a major epidemic occurs, they're criticized for not doing enough to prevent it. OTOH if they take action that succeeds in preventing an epidemic, they get criticized for "crying wolf."

      To make this a little more on topic for Slashdot, it's just like the whole Y2K thing. Why did we spend all that money and effort preventing Y2K bugs when nothing major happened? Nothing major happened BECAUSE of the professionals "crying wolf" and getting organizations to be proactive and get things fixed in time, not despite it.

    9. Re:It's for real this time, I promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aedes can sure live up to the 40's in North America [not so much in cooler South America - yep, the southern hemisphere is cooler]. Eggs can rest months awaiting eclosion. Mosquitos can survive inside heated houses for the winter long. South of the 35th paralel in NA it's gonna be a party for them year-round.

  13. Monsanto stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just bought Monsanto stock for this very reason. People hates agribusiness, as reflected in the current price of MON, but when something like Zika hits people look to it to provide the solution. Control Zika and profit! Everybody wins!

    1. Re: Monsanto stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you make money off of people's misfortunes? You're just as bad as a drug dealer.

    2. Re: Monsanto stock by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't understand the concept of investment.

      During hard times stores like Walmart do better and stores like Bloomingdales do worse (making things very simple here) .

      Are making "money off of people's misfortunes" buy selling your Bloomingdales stock and buying Walmart? NO.

      Then why is buying Monsanto (if it does indeed sell products that would help in Zika infected areas be an examples of "money off of people's misfortunes"

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    3. Re: Monsanto stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to think of my investment as helping people in need. I am thankful for my blood pressure medication, even though I have to pay for it.

    4. Re: Monsanto stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that's what makes you happy. The average pharma CEO only has 5 yachts.

    5. Re:Monsanto stock by butchersong · · Score: 1

      You might have been better off to buy stock in Oxitec if this current situation was your motivation.

  14. Re: good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I wish, but then I wouldn't be able to pay the rent because I'd be out of a job.

    I really hate the parents more than the kids though. Calling me or my assistant late in the night to ask stupid shit ("what's the homework?" My response, check the fucking message you get every day or ask your kid why he didn't write it down when I explained it for five minutes in class, or "my kid can't read" my response, maybe if that little fucker brought his book and paid attention rather than goffing off all class he'd be able to read). And then some ask me to pay more attention to their little brat in class or stay late to tutor him (no, I don't play favorites, and pay me tutor rates if you want that shit) All sorts of stupid shit. I signed up to teach kids and instead I can barely teach because of all the bullshit (and don't get me started on administrative tasks, pointless grading of homework that students don't even look at, weekly meetings to discuss things and never come to a conclusion anyway, or the conclusion is we just have to do what we're told to do, etc.) Fuck it all.

  15. Return of DDT? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    This does make me wonder if the CDC and the FDA will review the ban on DDT. Some of the original research causing its ban has been called into question, and it remains used very effectively to control malaria in many parts of the world.

    1. Re:Return of DDT? by swb · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember that it's use is still allowed in some places as kind of "shock treatment" -- used briefly, before much adaptation can occur to knock back insect populations significantly, while applying more sustainable control methods which on their own take a long time to reach peak effectiveness.

      IIRC, the big problems with DDT were rapid adaptation in target populations and the negative effects to birds of persistence in the food chain. Used in a very controlled manner, these negatives I think are less of a problem.

      I think the larger problem is that it's so effective in the short run that they don't want to stop using it.

    2. Re:Return of DDT? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Yeah because mosquitos don't become resistant to it *eye roll* Also, "...better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT." So no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Return of DDT? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Yeah because mosquitos don't become resistant to it *eye roll* Also, "...better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT." So no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      As well, There is a substance called BT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which is a natural substance, and pretty specific in what it kills. We use BT tablets in our pond, and while nuking the mosquitos, the fish, and especially the frogs, are not bothered a bit. Narrow spectrum heaven.

      While the target insects over time can develop immunity, it appears that BT can be fine tuned once a group has developed some immunity. Not perfect, but what is.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Return of DDT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The research has been called into question by the same kind armchair scientists (read: free-market enthusiasts with a political chip on their shoulder against tree-huggers) who don't believe in global warming. The research is pretty solid on it's impacts and over the years and the inconsistencies have been cleared up in the past 40 years. Where the confusion arises is: 1) DDT is not what damages birds' eggshells, it's the metabolite of DDT known as DDE. 2) DDE's impacts on birds depends on the type of bird it impacts. Many gallinaceous birds (e.g. chickens) don't have a big problem with it. Many raptors (e.g. eagles) are extremely sensitive to it.

      This is a much bigger political debate than it is a scientific one, as in the case of anti-vaccine, global warming denialism, and questioning the theory of evolution. I'm kindly letting you know where the scientific research stands on this one, 'lest you get lumped into the same groups described above.

  16. Meanwhile Ted Cruz will try to ban abortions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Abortion is the only smart choicefor a woman who finds she's pregnant and positive for Zika at the same time.

    1. Re: Meanwhile Ted Cruz will try to ban abortions by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      If they allowed abortions up to the 136 trimester, then we could simply abort Cruz and save everyone a lot of grief.

  17. I still have doubts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i wonder why Columbia, the second biggest hotbed of Zika has no increase in birth defects.
    http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2016/04/zika-in-colombia-week-13.html

    Tin Foil Hat Trigger:
    also i still don't like that the area where Zika is prevalent in Brazil was putting pesticides (pyroproxifen) in the drinking water.

    https://mauihawaiitheworld.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/zika-virus-controversy-is-it-a-scam/

  18. Re: good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parents issues:
    Calling you at night? Unforgivable, especially since the information is available in a message they receive.
    Complain about kids reading ability? Recommend the parent read nightly with their kids. Mine have no issues since I started that.
    Tutor kids for free? Many schools offer some sort of after school tutoring, if not point them to a private tutor, or just recommend Kahn accademy.
    Your issues
    Pointless homework grading? Stop assigning pointless homework.
    Admin tasks? Come up with a system and hammer it out. Admin tasks have to be handled.
    Weekly pointless meetings? stop going.

  19. F* the Luddites by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Release those GMO mosquitos that eliminate the species spreading Zika

    1. Re:F* the Luddites by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see that too. The mosquito life cycle is only weeks long, if we spend a few years creating and releasing GMO mosquitoes all over the world then maybe we could make the populations collapse.

      I'm not a huge fan of genocide of any particular species, and I realize there would be other effects of a sudden lack of mosquitoes, but that's one species that I wouldn't mind being rid of. They spread so much disease that I question if the ecosystem would really be that much worse off without them.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:F* the Luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought i always heard that Bats ate them, and dragonflies eat the larva and full grown adults.

    3. Re:F* the Luddites by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It turns out that a lot of benign species, like damsel flies and fish flies, are ready to occupy the mosquito ecological niche. The world will not miss them.

  20. Re: good thing by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Good. The fewer children in the world the better.

    Children (especially this generation) are selfish entitled brats, just absolutely disgusting creatures. Fuck your special snowflake.

    (I'm a teacher by the way. Maybe I less hate kids than I hate the way they are raised by their parents. But regardless, had a long day and need to blow off some steam.)

    Where you live, maybe. Don't tar all of humanity with the same brush.

    And as thats probably the USA guess what? They grow up to be selfish entitled brats. Your adults behave like gigantic toddlers.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  21. not the only smart choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe:

    1. the unborn are human and alive and deserving of rights
    2. disabled people also have rights; we should not kill them

    then obviously no, even if you are smart.

    Some people feel a duty to care for the disabled. Some people even love their disabled children.

    There are lots of things that are "smart" if you don't care about others.

    1. Re:not the only smart choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about humanity as a race? Disabled people do not assist in the development of our society in any meaningful way, nor do they contribute anything. You may argue they contribute to the "happiness" of their parents, but that's difficult to quantify since the parents would have also been happy with a "normal" child, adopted child, or even no child at all.

      In the, nature is a cruel beast, and sometimes humanity forgets that. For our race as a whole, we probably shouldn't.

  22. Don't forget. by skoony · · Score: 0

    Don't forget Monkey Pox., Remember Monkey Pox?

  23. Does this put ALL primates at risk? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Nobody seems to have thought about this, but doesn't this new version of Zika mean the eventual extinction of all wild primate populations?