Sure Hope the WHO is 100 Percent Correct
Because Florida and Four Million Canadians Need It
Over the past week, it became clear to me that biggest impediment to solving our evolving Zika crisis is the want for some scientists to derail the work of others.
Perhaps the motivation is career-related, money-related, grudge-related, I don't know – but it's a huge problem that will cost lives.
Dr. Aileen Marty Replied to Me
November 14th, 2016:
Dear Rose:
I am currently at the ASTMH 65th annual meeting working specifically on Arboviral diseases.
To answer your questions, first, West Nile is not more closely related to Zika than Dengue. West Nile is a subtype of Japanese B encephalitis virus and is in fact LESS related to Zika than Dengue.
Also, all evidence thus far reveal that Culex mosquitoes (while rarely having been found to harbor Zika virus) are not good vectors of Zika because the Zika virus does not appear to replicate easily in Culex as it does in other types of mosquitos such as Aedes sp. Mosquitos.
Also, Wolbachia does not kill mosquitoes; not even genetically modified Wolbachia. I have many more comments but I have to return to the conference and this computer is almost out of power.
I will be back in Florida on Thursday you can reach me in my office then and we can chat.
Realizing She Must Have Been in a Hurry
I Immediately Wrote Her Back to Explain Some More
Dear Dr. Marty,
"If you look at the support for the phylogenetic placement [of Zika virus], there is 99 percent support for that node saying ... that the clade includes West Nile, Saint Louis encephalitis, and Zika virus."
Zika Symposium
2016 International Congress of Entomology
I Even Included This Screenshot of Dr. Hunter
And Zika's Phylogenetic Clade With WNV and SLE
I Continued With a Quote From Dr. Hunter
"The fact that there are no data as far as I can tell that Aedes aegypti is driving this Zika epidemic just flabbergasts me." ~ Dr. Fiona Hunter, medical entomologist at Canada's Brock University[1]
"Why, in the human environment, only Aedes aegypti is the villain ... Culex perfuscus has a transmission rate 10 times higher than Aedes aegypti ... but this species, in discussions, was completely ignored... Zika is more related to the viruses transmitted by Culex."
"Actually, there are very few A. aegypti mosquitoes in Micronesia. There are other species of Aedes in the region, but A. aegypti is very rare on most of the islands and is completely absent from the islands where the vast majority of cases of Zika occurred.
The problem is that until now everyone who studied the circulation of Zika virus only looked at species of Aedes. It was assumed these mosquitoes must be Zika vectors because they were already well-known vectors of dengue, chikungunya and yellow fever." ~ Dr. Ayres[2]
"Some populations [of Culex] have already adapted to living side-by-side with humans ... and are as efficient at biting humans as Aedes aegypti. Larvae will develop in sewers and pit latrines and adults live in people's houses." ~ Dina Fonseca, entomologist at Rutgers University, New Jersey[3]
"This study suggests that although susceptible to infection, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were unexpectedly low competent vectors for ZIKV [Zika virus]."
"The bacteria is tough enough to survive for at least a week after its host's death, allowing it to spread to new organisms." ~ Dr. John Timmer, Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley[5]
"We had to repeat it a couple times before we actually believed the result," Rasgon said. Culex mosquitoes treated with Wolbachia were MORE LIKELY to carry the virus."[6]
A February 5th, 2014 study called Wolbachia Increases Susceptibility to Plasmodium Infection in a Natural System[7] by , , , , , and
"These results suggest that naturally Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes may, in fact, be better vectors of malaria than Wolbachia-free ones."
I Continued With This Impassioned Plea
Don't you think that there is a real risk of Culex becoming infected naturally with Wolbachia and then (as with West Nile and malaria) Culex become even MORE likely to be infected with Zika and to therefore infect more humans?
In my mind, Wolbachia could, in fact, be the one thing that has been overlooked. And when I checked out filariasis on a global map, I was shocked by the similarities between its prevalence and Zika's path. I think Dr. Ayres might have said something about this previously, I tend to hang on her every word.
There is a ring of truth about everything Dr. Ayres has stated and I wish I could say the same for the CDC, WHO, and Health Canada.
I sincerely feel there is divide in the scientific community right now. And I've kept as open a mind as I can to all of the evidence. But I think there was (is?) a dangerous type of "group think" within the WHO. I sense the CDC and WHO wanted to appease the IOC and so perhaps evidence has been ignored for too long.
Wolbachia cannot be taken back, so I sincerely hope that honest evaluations are being done on Culex to:
a) Look for Zika in all Culex species of Florida.
b) Determine what effect Wolbachia has on Culex when they are naturally infected.
Thank you for reading this letter in full.
Her Response to Me Had Me Shaking My Head
My Thoughts are in Square Brackets:
Hi Rose: It is so interesting you sent me to a presentation that begins with Steve Higgs, current president of the ASTMH (which is where I am). [Who cares about Steve Higgs? Right now, I'm thinking about the women grappling with the heartbreaking decision of whether or not to abort their babies.]
I had a lovely chat with him yesterday morning (before your e-mail) specifically regarding Zika. [Again, Dr. Marty rubbing shoulders with Steve Higgs doesn't impress me one bit].
First, please see the following data from https://www.viprbrc.org/brc/home.spg?decorator=vipr which reveals the following sets of genomes for Zika https://www.viprbrc.org/brc/vipr_genome_search.spg?method=SubmitForm&blockId=2721&decorator=flavi
and provides a phylogenetic tree (https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/46c2359d-3039-4798-bc24-9c525754a64a) that demonstrates no increased genetic link between West Nile and Zika than between Zika and Dengue.
I do find the links you sent quite interesting. And I would like to offer the following comments:
- Regarding your reference to the Globe article that states, "The fact that there are no data as far as I can tell that Aedes aegypti is driving this Zika epidemic just flabbergasts me." ~ Dr. Fiona Hunter, medical entomologist at Canada's Brock University The article was written BEFORE we captured mosquitoes infected with Zika and is thus, solidly out of date. That said, I agree that there is a lot more to the story than simple mosquito transmission.
- Regarding your comment about the video of the Sep 27, 2016 Zika symposium at the 2015 [sic] International Congress of Entomology (that begins with Steve’s lecture) where you note, "At 30:15 mark (same video) Dr. Aryes completely debunks earlier studies that pointed to only Aedes as a vector. In fact, Culex wasn't even looked at." There are now several papers examining Culex as a possible vector for Zika, and none of them support Culex as currently capable vector for Zika (though it is certainly possible that there is some species of Culex out there that might be able to, the data does not currently support that view). Here are some you should look at: Vector Competence of American Mosquitoes for Three Strains of Zika Virus http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005101; Culex mosquitoes are experimentally unable to transmit Zika virus. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=22573; Experimental investigation of the susceptibility of Italian Culex pipiens mosquitoes to Zika virus infection. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=22568; and Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro Is Not Competent to Transmit the Local Zika Virus. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004993
- Regarding the next part of her lecture where as you note, "At 44:21 she stated: "Why, in the human environment, only Aedes aegypti is the [mention] ... Culex perfuscus has a transmission rate 10 times higher than Aedes aegypti ... but this species, in discussions, was completely ignored... Zika is more related to the viruses transmitted by Culex." ~ Dr. Constancia Ayres" I totally agree with her (and with you), we must never close our minds to thinking that by identifying ONE possible vector (or mode of transmission) that there are not other potential vectors (or modes of transmission).
- Regarding "Furthermore, no pools of A. aegypti were associated with other outbreaks of Zika, such as the 2007 epidemic in Micronesia, in the western Pacific, when approximately 70% of Yap Island’s population of 7,300 was infected. Dr. Ayres contacted researchers in the region to identify which mosquito species was most abundant there. Their answer was C. quinquefasciatus, which had not been investigated as a Zika vector." Same answer as for #3.
- Regarding "Actually, there are very few A. aegypti mosquitoes in Micronesia. There are other species of Aedes in the region, but A. aegypti is very rare on most of the islands and is completely absent from the islands where the vast majority of cases of Zika occurred. The problem is that until now everyone who studied the circulation of Zika virus only looked at species of Aedes. It was assumed these mosquitoes must be Zika vectors because they were already well-known vectors of dengue, chikungunya and yellow fever." ~ Dr. Ayres" Same answer as for #3.
- Regarding "Some populations [of Culex] have already adapted to living side-by-side with humans ... and are as efficient at biting humans as Aedes aegypti. Larvae will develop in sewers and pit latrines and adults live in people's houses." ~ Dina Fonseca, entomologist at Rutgers University, New Jersey " Same answer as for #2 and #3.
- Regarding, "The conclusion (published March 3rd, 2016) in Differential Susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from the Americas to Zika Virus states: "This study suggests that although susceptible to infection, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were unexpectedly low competent vectors for ZIKV." Yes, that is correct I have never been one to agree with those who pointed to ‘only Ae aegypti and Ae. Albopictus’ for Zika, in fact I have often lectured about the many other Aedes species that are known to be able to vector Zika (and that in an ASTMH journal peer reviewed article it was pointed out that one species of Anopheline and one species of Mansoni mosquitoes were discovered positive for Zika). None of that, however, changes my thoughts regarding my original answer to your question from yesterday.
- Regarding Wolbachia, I was responding to your original statement, i.e. "If Culex prove to be a formidable vector in Florida, then Wolbachia could be problematic. Culex were shown to be even more susceptible to West Nile virus and naturally-infected Culex were shown to be better vectors of malaria. These results were unexpected, of course. My sense is that if Culex acquires Wolbachia (naturally) when Aedes die off or via other organisms or parasites, they could become even more susceptible to the Zika virus." I am so sorry but none of what you have written makes sense. You are misunderstanding a lot of complex scientific data. In fact you have recompiled the data in a way that has no basis in fact. First, go back my answer to #2. Then, and most importantly, Culex pipiens mosquito complex is a group of evolutionarily closely related species of mosquitoes. This complex includes the very important C. pipiens and Culex quinquefasciatus, both NATURALLY infected by the cytoplasmically inherited Wolbachia symbiont. In other words, Culex already HAVE Wolbachia. In fact, Wolbachia helps the mosquito survive.
- Thus, No, no I do not think at ALL that there is any real risk of Culex becoming infected naturally with Wolbachia (BECAUSE it is already infected naturally with Wolbachia!) Nor does the Wolbachia in any way impact Culex to make the mosquito more likely to be infected with Zika (if anything it may be one of the reasons it is a poor vector for Zika).
I hope you find this information of value. All the best, Aileen
I Wrote the Following Response
And I Have Not Heard Anything Back From Anyone:
Dear Dr. Marty,
Credit: Screenshot by RoseWritesThe first link you sent me yielded an "unexpected error" prompt (see screenshot at right). 
Credit: Screenshot by RoseWritesWe had to repeat it a couple times before we actually believed the result," Rasgon said. Culex mosquitoes treated with Wolbachia were MORE LIKELY to carry the virus." Source: https://psmag.com/tackling-west-nile-with-bacteria-may-worsen-the-disease-31fe9fd23371#.h3b4uwgrs
A February 5th, 2014 study called Wolbachia Increases Susceptibility to Plasmodium Infection in a Natural System by F. Zélé, A. Nicot, A. Berthomieu, M. Weill, O. Duron, and A. Rivero stated: "These results suggest that naturally Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes may, in fact, be BETTER VECTORS of malaria than Wolbachia-free ones." Source: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1779/20132837
Los Angeles Times is Keeping My Commentary
ABC News Removed My Posts and Disqus Banned Me
Is This Why ABC Removed My Posts?
Bill Gates Funds Wolbachia-Infected Mosquito Releases
Sorry Florida and Canadian Snowbirds, I Tried
