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.

53 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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. . .

  7. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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...
    2. 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.

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

      Last time I checked SARS doesn't cause microcephaly.

    4. 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...
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

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

    It would be true if he had said "malaria"

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

    It affects white people.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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...

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

    Caused by mosquito bite.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. Re: Monsanto stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  25. 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/

  26. 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 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.
  31. Re: More important than Ebola research? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

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

  32. 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?