Unintended consequences: Researchers warn against releasing GM mosquitoes in U.S.

Phys.org

Releasing genetically-modified mosquitoes into the wild to fight malaria, Zika or other insect-borne diseases is premature and could have unintended consequences, researchers said in a new report.

"Our committee urges caution—a lot more research is needed to understand the scientific, ethical, regulatory and social consequences of releasing such organisms," said Arizona State University professor James Collins, who was co-chair of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee.

The committee was studying gene drives—systems of "biased inheritance" that make it more likely for a genetic trait to pass from parent to offspring.

With new gene-editing techniques, modifications can quickly spread through a population via a gene drive, greatly increasing chances that the altered gene will become widespread.

"Preliminary research suggested that gene drives developed in the laboratory could spread a targeted gene through nearly 100 percent of a population of yeast, fruit flies or mosquitoes," the academies said in a news release announcing the committee's report Wednesday.

The technology could potentially be used to target wild mosquitoes, modifying them so they are not able to carry or spread infectious diseases such as dengue, malaria and Zika.

In agriculture, gene drive might be used to control pests that damage crops.

However, such technology could have devastating unintended consequences "such as the unintentional disruption of a non-target species or the establishment of a second, more resilient invasive species," the researchers said.

"Because the goal of using a gene drive is to spread genetic information throughout a population rapidly, it is difficult to anticipate its impact and important to minimize the potential for unintended consequences," the report said, calling for more research, phased testing and better collaboration among scientists.

The committee found that existing regulations are insufficient for assessing risks of field experiments or planned releases of organisms modified through gene drives.

"As of May 2016, no ecological risk assessment has been conducted for a gene-drive modified organism," the report noted. 

Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Zika Virus

By Dr. Mercola

It's that time again — time for the pandemic outbreak propaganda machine to cry "Wolf!" and justify the mass use of vaccines and the necessity for chemical remediation. The World Health Organization (WHO) has already declared another global public health emergency.¹

We've seen a string of these over-hyped virus scares over the past six years, from the bird and swine flu to Ebola — all of which died down as suddenly as they emerged, without causing the predicted widespread catastrophic damage in the real world.

This year, it's the Zika virus, which is being blamed for a rash of reports of microcephaly^2,3 among infants born in Brazil. The condition, in which babies are born with unusually small heads, is said to have surged from an average of about 150 cases annually to more than 4,780 cases since October 2015.

Microcephaly Cases Vastly Over-Reported

The Brazilian government has already admitted that overly generous parameters resulted in dramatic over-reporting of the rare condition public health officials have associated with the Zika virus, which has been dubbed by the media as the "shrunken head" virus.

To be on the safe side, when Zika-affected areas began seeing a rise in microcephaly, the Brazilian government asked health officials to report any case in which a child was born with a head circumference smaller than 33 centimeters.

False positives were expected, and when they realized that most of these babies were in fact healthy and normal, the threshold was lowered to 32 centimeters in December. The limit may be lowered even further, to 31.9 centimeters for boys and 31.5 centimeters for girls.

As reported by The New York Times:⁴

"Of the cases examined so far, 404 have been confirmed as having microcephaly. Only 17 of them tested positive for the Zika virus...
Another 709 babies have been ruled out as having microcephaly ... underscoring the risks of false positives making the epidemic appear larger than it actually is. The remaining 3,670 cases are still being investigated." [Emphasis mine]

As noted by The New York Times, there's actually very little scientific evidence tying the Zika virus to this particular condition.

Still, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus a global health emergency⁵ on February 1, noting that the "main worry" is the virus' potential link to microcephaly and subsequent brain damage.

According to WHO, the Zika virus may have infected as many as 4 million people in the Americas, and public health officials in Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador are reportedly all researching the effects of Zika infection in pregnant women.

Poverty, Pollution, and Vitamin Deficiencies May Affect Microcephaly Rates in Brazil

The Zika virus was initially identified in 1947 in Uganda, where it was originally limited to rhesus monkeys. It's an arbovirus, meaning the disease is transmitted via mosquito, tick or flea bites.

According to ATCC,⁶ a "global biological materials resource...organization whose mission focuses on the acquisition, authentication, production, preservation, development, and distribution of standard reference microorganisms," the Zika virus⁷ — which they sell for about $500 — causes paralysis and death.

In humans, Zika infection typically causes only mild flu-like symptoms, if any, and there does not appear to be any prior evidence suggesting it might cause birth defects.
That certainly doesn't exclude the possibility, of course, but there are many other factors and co-factors that offer a far more likely and rational explanation for the rise in microcephaly in this area of Brazil, besides Zika-carrying mosquitoes.

For starters, the "outbreak" is occurring in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides.^8,9,10

Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you already have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area.¹¹

Environmental pollution^12,13 and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. When you add all these co-factors together, an increase in microcephaly doesn't seem like such a far-fetched outcome.

Read more