Recently, I wrote this short letter to a set of scientific researchers who had written on the topic of Zika in one form or another.
“You may be interested in reading this recent reformulation of the Zika-microcephaly pandemic in the American Journal of Medicine, given your own expertise in the subject. As the author of Investigating Zika-Microcephaly’s ‘Crash’ and the book Overturning Zika, I would be very curious to get your thoughts and analysis.“
Here is one reply (with my further questions appended). I have not heard back from my second set of questions, despite the rather dismissive approach this researcher took to the reformulation of information about Zika… The researcher’s letter comprises the left column, and the set of my questions her replies brought up are on the right. What are your thoughts?
How would you answer my questions? Will this researcher reply to my questions?
| I think you missed completely the point. | |
| How so? What is “the point”? Conversely, I might ask you how many of the original Zika microcephaly predictions from the pandemic/panic era were borne out in future years? | |
| The association between the zika virus and the Congenital Zika Syndrome is already proven and based on sound scientific evidence Please note that is not only microcephaly, which is a clinical sign and very unspecific). | |
| Perhaps on a “micro-” level, there can be effects seen from the application of Zika-virus (as with many other viruses); however, on the population-scale even you must admit that the results have been essentially nil, once greater scrutiny, firmer standards, and actual proactive testing occurred. What do you think about the rate of abnormalities’ occurrence between (proven) rubella (> 80% in first-trimester, naïve subjects) versus Zika’s (4% penetration rate)? | |
| I strongly suggest you review more recent publications. | |
| Please suggest those you find most convincing and/or relevant to this subject, the disappearance of Zika microcephaly on a population level, and the absence of confirmation of the earliest predictions and hypotheses. | |
| I won’t spend too much time in a tweet discussion which is not productive at all. | |
| Debate and discussion are productive, and the “twitter-sphere” is useful for bringing in other voices and points of view. | |
| There are different lines presently, both epidemiological, dysmorphological, animal studies, in-vitro studies and in-silico. | |
| “Different lines” of what? Are you saying that there are different strains of Zika and they have different capabilities of bringing about microcephaly and/or other congenital abnormalities? | |
| I agree that this point you raised was an issue in 2016 but not in 2022. | |
| What is “this point” I raised? Are you saying that it was reasonable to doubt the Zika-microcephaly connection in 2016 but not now in 2022 after six consecutive years of complete disappearance of any Zika-microcephaly rate increases in Northeast Brazil or anywhere else on earth? | |
| Ops, moreover – now we do have tests for zika virus and we still have cases of Congenital Zika Syndrome. | |
| Are you aware that in the “pandemic year” of 2015-2016 that ZERO Zika-tests were performed on any of the presumed-exposed Recife cohort of microcephalic-baby mothers? The Zika tests are available worldwide, and there has been continued scrutiny (probably now abating, given the continued absence of any further “outbreaks”). While people have had the tests and the scrutiny there has been no overall rate increase of Zika-microcephaly. When there was no testing, no confirmation, there was. Do you see something or anything wrong there? | |
| You probably have never seen one of those patients or families and cannot perceive how different this syndrome is. | |
| I readily admit that I have not treated or seen any neuropediatrics cases. I rely completely on others’ observations and statistical counts; however, given that, those who can and do measure these things have not noticed the predicted numbers based on the original theory.. | |
| I am a medical dysmorphologist seeing patients with congenital anomalies for more than 30 years. | |
| I appreciate your work and expertise; however, you must readily admit that morphologic changes are not easily attributable to a given cause on a case-by-case basis. | |
| So many points you are missing. | |
| Please elaborate. I would be happy to stand corrected. Conversely, do you notice any weakness in the argumentation as originally presented? Are you aware that the first two steps of the Zika-microcephaly theory were brought to public attention through leaks to the press rather than through education and peer review scientifically? | |
| I guess you believe that we in the South hemisphere are not capable of good science, or that we are not good clinicians. | |
| That is an uncalled-for assumption. I believe that worldwide there has been essentially a case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, avoiding any reformulation or retraction of the original Zika-microcephaly theory, despite its gross failure as a predictive for future events. I would never lump all individuals within “the southern hemisphere” one way or another. Do you endorse (from within an institute devoted to “GOOD SCIENCE”) the “CHIKV, The Mission” -group that a priori tasked itself with finding a new virus (they were presuming it was going to be chikungunya)?
“SCIENCE” is not a monolith in either hemisphere. Those physicians and researchers were operating outside the rules of science such as it is formulated within Brazil through its institutions and universities. Firstly, they had a social and essentially political goal in advance of (and as a reason for) their hunt for chikungunya: reversing perceived social inequities or inequalities. There were scientists within Brazil, within its establishment that expressed concerns as originally the Zika-declaration was made and then Zika-microcephaly connection was made as well. The CHIKV, The Mission group succeeded beyond likely its wildest dreams in bringing attention to Brazil’s Northeast – but at what cost? | |
| Fortunately, I’m here to take care of these families and do good science. | |
| I appreciate your work and your caring for families with children having dysmorphologic issues; your mentioning your having done this for 30 years certainly anticipates my point that these problems have ALWAYS previously existed – and will continue to do so – independent of whether the Zika-microcephaly theory is valid. | |
| Bye and I hope you have time to study a little bit more the scientific literature and make your revision | |
| What revision would that be? And where would you direct me within the scientific literature to show that the original Zika-microcephaly theory has fulfilled its predictions – or will do so? Are you familiar with the rationales (or excuses) of why Zika microcephaly occurred ONLY within that one brief moment (as it were) and then never returned – or occurred anywhere else where Zika similarly would be? |