To be confused about this Zika virus 'threat' ?

[batshitlady]

It seems only 270 cases of microcephaly (babies born with small heads and brain impairment) have actually ben cvonfirmed in Brazil (pop' 200,000,000) and of those 270, only six were found to have the Zika virus?

Yet governments all over the world are claiming that Zika causes microcephaly. Doesn't make sense does it?

No-one has said that it is proven scientifically. Or at least no-one who's opinion counts.

They are saying the evidence at the moment is pointing to that. It may change as more information comes in. Regardless of the virus, the levels of microcephaly being reported in the affected areas at the moment pose a potential public health crisis.

The spread of the Zika virus at the moment is epidemic. If it isn't linked to microcephaly, this probably isn't an issue. If it turns out it is then this could pose a huge issue. Sitting back and doing nothing because a strongly suspected link isn't a proven one isn't really an option.

Well, whatever it is, no one in the scientific community is saying that there is a single cause for microencephaly (even wiki has a good list of the known causes). So of course it can happen in the absence of any particular one of them.

It can be certainly be causes by viral illness of the mother during pregnancy, that's been known for decades (for example, it's one of the types of damage rubella can do).

What is being investigated now is the huge spike in cases in French Polynesia and Brazil, both of which occurred in the right time frame following the arrival of this particular virus.

As the association is so strong, public health authorities have chosen to work on the basis that it is the cause (either singly or with a co-factor) in terms of advice to the public. By formally declaring an emergency there will be far more resources available to study both the virus and the spike in microencephaly. That is IMO a good thing.

It seem to me that all this is not yet proven scientifically. Very little is known. But in the mean time we're calling Zika an epidemic

It seems to you? And you are a scientist, microbiologist, epidemiologist or doctor of any kind?
Or have you just read the Daily Mail?

Nhs ban on giving blood for 28 days after travel.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12138121/Zika-outbreak-NHS-bans-blood-donations-for-28-days-after-travel.html

OP is okay to be confused, it is confusing.

What OP calls confusing, scientists call that intriguing.
Just please don't turn to conspiracy theories for explanation. They waste a lot of time, opportunity, & money.

It would help if the British media took a more sensible and informative slant when reporting science and health stories.

If people don't understand how or why the WHO might declare an emergency situation and the media are going for shock headlines, it's easy to see how gaps and misunderstandings can make things 'not add up'.

When science reporting is in the hands of the proper science correspondents, it's usually just fine.

When it hits the main news however, general reporters get involved and want to maximise the angles they see as newsworthy.

Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, as it has quite a lot about the incompatibility of science and the news cycle.

That said, when there is an emerging disease spreading in a number of countries with a strong association to highly adverse outcomes, then there is need to get it highlighted enough to get the resources needed for urgent study. And that tends to mean publicity is needed.

I love Bad Science, I've read it more than once.

I take your point about the publicity. This article in the Guardian seems to be well written and explains a lot. I'd guess the Daily Express version will be less so.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/01/zika-virus-world-health-organisation-declares-global-health-emergency

Here is a patient information leaflet on Zika virus in pregnancy produced by the UK teratology information service (I work there!). It was updated yesterday so contains all of the most up to date info. Feedback very welcome

www.medicinesinpregnancy.org/Medicine--pregnancy/Zika-virus/

Yes scaevola. But I think that before saying that a particular virus is causing a particular condition, thus causing considerable fear. It would be a good idea to find out how many actual cases of the condition are 100% certain. Then, in those cases, find out if the virus in question is actually present. Because, if it isn’t present, then the hysteria -- like the one going around now, is unjustified.

My DD2 (age 14) has microcephaly, with unknown cause, though probably genetic. The huge increase in general comments on the condition, when up till now virtually nobody has heard of it, has been quite extraordinary. There is a huge range of possible outcomes, from no impact to very profound disability. My DD has severe learning disabilities, can walk with support, still wears continence pads, has a feeding tube and has no speech. She is an incredibly cheerful, lovely person and in her case I don't believe she suffers any chronic pain. All the cases are different. However, if 20% of a population group were to be born with this level of disability, before a vaccine can be developed, this would quite evidently have an enormous personal and financial impact on a generation of parents and their children, and the supporting government.

Surely it's important to take this very seriously at this stage until the connection has been properly investigated?

The confirmed cases have been proven to have the virus present (in the placenta, in amniotic fluid, in aborted foetuses and in newborns).

Testing has been carried out in only about 10% of cases, but the virus has been found in all. That is a striking correlation.

Oh batshit, you haven't a clue. Almost nothing in science or medicine is ever 100% certain. If you waited for that, you would never warn anyone about anything, never use new drugs (or even old drugs, we've been using lots for decades and we still don't know exactly how they do what they do).

You want people to catch this disease, and have lots of affected babies, and wait and wait until we know everything about it before we say "hey, be careful in x an y place" and so on?

And again, what on earth do you think you know about it anyway, to be second guessing world experts on diseases?

That's rude Ziggy. There is no such thing as "official science" and I can do my own reading and research.

We need to be careful about a lot of things.. The amount of panic that's being promoted here in unwarranted IMO. Many of the women who are giving birth to deformed babies test negative for the presence of the Zika Virus. So saying we need to take care because that's what some very clever people are telling us -- isn't good enough.

It's a mistake to just assume there's one cause for this. There could be many different causes at play. For example Brazil uses a lot more pesticides than any country in the world. 22 of which are banned in other countries. As for babies born with smaller heads, read this study from Health Perspectives

The part about Atrazine and metolachlor (both used a lot in Brazil) I found particularly interesting.

"Many of the women who are giving birth to deformed babies test negative for the presence of the Zika Virus."

Yes, this is unsurprising as the virus does clear from the body. So other epidemiological research is required.

It's really not rude. From your comments I can tell that you are not remotely qualified to have these opinions, let alone spread them. You can read and "research" all you like, but unless you have the right education or training, you won't understand most of what you are reading. And so you form half baked, underinformed opinions, with conspiracy theory leanings and you fill in the blanks with silliness.

Batshit, they haven't said the Zika virus is definitely the cause of the microcephaly. The WHO have been clear about the fact there isn't a proven causative link. There is some evidence to suggest there might be but to release the funding to continue to do the things you think they should be doing to find out what is going on the need to declare it an international public health emergency. They need to be proactive rather than reactive.

They were accused of being too slow with Ebola. I think they've probably got it about right here.

I know they haven't Rafa.. But the factual data fails in this case to back up the hype, that's my point.

Thing is, there is research and there is research. Reading around popular science websites and newspaper articles is fine, but it doesn't really count as research. Research would involve reading peer reviewed papers and reviews. These are usually published in journals that only have limited access - so you need to subscribe and are in "science language". I have a PhD in biochemistry but have been out of the field for some years, i now find peer reviewed science journals pretty heavy reading, but they are factual. The stuff printed in popular media will not be peer reviewed and may well be total bollocks.

I can't understand why you have a problem with the WHOs course of action, there is urgent need for research and research costs money. So they need to get the resources etc in place. The best research looks to discount as much as it does prove theories, so whilst the hypothesis is that it is the Zika Virus, spread by mosquitoes that is causing these problems, they will not just be following that one lead, they will indeed be looking at other factors. It is just highly likely that the Zika Virus is the cause. Highly likely is not the same as definite and no one has said that.

What hype? what data?

scevola is right, the virus does clear from the body so testing for presence of the virus is not going to be definitive. Testing for anti-bodies to the virus might, but this will need to be developed im sure and may not be accurate in all cases.

Why can you not accept the answers to your questions? After all you said you wanted discussion. It is ok to say, oh, ok - thanks, i didn't know that.

The hype around the so called epidemic.

I know - I know I have no PHD in anything, much to my shame.. But I am, I think, sufficiently cynical. Do you recall the hysteria around Sars in 2003? The germ was the “coronavirus.” Have I got that right? Frank Plummer, a Canadian microbiologist who worked for the WHO, said just about none of the people being diagnosed with SARS actually had the coronavirus.

So they were all suffering from a 'certain disease', except they didn't have what causes this 'certain disease'.. I remain a cynic..

Have they started using the chemicals you mentioned recently? If not, why are we seeing a sudden spike in microcephaly?

New Scientist article