iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Edward J. Sylvester
 
GET UPDATES FROM Dr. Lynn C. Klotz
 

A New H5N1 Flu Virus? This Research Should Stop Now

Posted: 02/19/2012 3:07 pm

The risks to world health from research to make an extraordinarily lethal avian flu virus contagious in humans have finally caught everyone's attention after months of warnings from us (Lynn Klotz*) and many other experts.

The Atlantic online (Feb. 16) features this question: Shouldn't regular citizens be able to weigh in on whether scientists are allowed to play with a virus that could kill a third of the population? Writer Pagan Kennedy's answer, summarized in the headline: Good luck.

Unfortunately, that feared virus may already exist. Two forms of the virus residing in two laboratories, one in the Netherlands and one in Wisconsin, may be highly contagious and highly deadly in humans, but we have evidence only from a good animal model for influenza viruses. We'll never know if it would be as deadly in humans simply because we cannot infect humans to get the proof.

Those who have been sounding the alarm are among the world leaders in molecular biology, microbiology, virology, public health and microbial genetics. Dr. Paul Keim was quoted in the journal Science in November: "I can't think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one.... I don't think anthrax is scary at all compared to this."

The anthrax connection: Keim is the molecular geneticist who traced the strain used in the 2001 anthrax-letter attack that killed five people, locating it at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Md. More importantly, he is now chair of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. The NSABB persuaded the researchers working on the H5N1 virus to remove key details before publishing their current results, and the researchers agreed to stop further work for at least 60 days.

Saturday's New York Times (Feb. 18) features a Page 1 story announcing that the World Health Organization is recommending that full details of the work be published, contrary to the NSABB recommendations. Publication is not the issue. The research itself should only resume if and when its benefit is clearly defined, and then only in BSL4 laboratories - the highest bio-security level - with the further requirement that workers with live virus undergo a quarantine period to assure they take nothing out with them.

Meanwhile, during that breathing period, we will try to explain the hazards of such research, the possible benefits that are driving it to begin with, and better ways to conduct investigations. The overall goals of the researchers are noble ones. They are hoping to protect us against the very real danger that naturally occurring H5N1 influenza virus, which now kills entire bird flocks and is quite lethal in humans, could mutate in ways that would also make it contagious in humans. But this is not the way to go about it.

Doesn't this bird flu kill people now?

Yes. And it may have a mortality rate of nearly 60%, higher than smallpox and any of the strains in the worst flu outbreaks known. But people cannot catch it from one another except under very unusual circumstances. The people to catch H5N1 flu so far tended chickens or worked with poultry closely enough that they were constantly exposed to the virus. By contrast, the so-called 1918 flu virus that killed millions in the United States and a total of 40 million around the world was incredibly contagious among humans. But it killed only about 2% of those infected. Imagine a new virus that combined the lethality of the H5N1 flu with the contagiousness of the 1918 pandemic strain. That is the scenario we may now be facing.

Soon to come:

What other lab-created risks are out there? How can we prevent them?

* Lynn Klotz was the US country researcher for the BioWeapons Monitor 2011 report where earlier attempts to make H5N1 Asian bird flu more pathogenic were highlighted. See p129

Lynn C. Klotz and Edward J. Sylvester are authors of Breeding Bio Insecurity: How U.S. Biodefense Is Exporting Fear, Globalizing Risk, and Making Us All Less Secure, University of Chicago Press, 2009.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:00 PM on 02/25/2012
Great discussion on a timely subject, of course. Please feel free to visit for an opportunity to help complete the documentary The Trouble with Boys (see the link) which discusses current children's health issues in the US. We recently interviewed Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC on this very topic. Thanks for your consideration. Truly, RB (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1767669208/the-trouble-with-boys)
03:35 PM on 02/20/2012
The simple fact is that one day we will have, another, deadly outbreak of a virus like the flu of 1918. The only way to be prepared is with research.

To pretend anything else is plain foolish and there are no logical arguments against proper preparation. There are, however, plenty of fear-mongering strategies.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
01:07 PM on 02/21/2012
Insisting that dangerous viruses be used only in BSL4 labs is not "fear-mongering": it is common sense.
02:01 AM on 02/23/2012
Except that's not what these people are saying. They are saying that this research should be shut down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sonic hedgehog
A true word needs no oath
02:04 PM on 02/20/2012
You're hyping the fear and misleading the people with your article. Researchers didn't create a lethal virus. The lethality of the virus wasn't changed in ferrets after the transmission was achieved. Moreover any virologist knows that increasing the transmissability of a virus will likely decrease its lethality, the fact that the pathogenicity didn't change in ferrets doesn't mean that it will not decrease in humans. Ferrets are a good model for studying influenza virus infections however that doesn't mean that they are good model for the every aspect of the viral infection. Recent pandemic H1N1 strain was extremely lethal in ferrets and we know that it was milder than seasonal flu in humans. This doesn't mean that ferrets shouldn't be used as animal models, it just means that you cannot predict every aspect of a viral infection in humans from animal models.

Paul Keim is an epidemiologist and a forensic scientist, he is not a virologist, and he is definitely not among the world leaders in molecular biology.

Finally, 60% mortality rate of H5N1 is based on limited number of cases, it is not known how many people are actually infected and not hospitalized. this means that the mortality rate of this virus may actually be less than even 1%. SARS has a higher mortality rate and has no drugs or vaccines that target it (while there are several vaccines and drugs against influenza and we know how to make them). SARS is worked under BSL3 not BSL4.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizenbfk
Founder, American Citizens Together
12:54 PM on 02/20/2012
Thank God! WE (USA) are the one's who have WEAPONIZED this Bird Flu -- just like WE were the one's who produced the anthrax used as the final panic to propel us into the Iraq War (as confirmed by the FBI, this anthrax came from a Virginia military research lab).
Most of our "history lessons,' not only skip over the horror of WW1 but also skip over the Spanish Flu of the same time period -- people dropped like flies -- estimates now go as high as 50 MILLION DEAD. --- that's more dead that all of WW2.
If we keep living in Disneyland - deny our warmongering and covert actions - we'll eventually blow up the Magic Kingdom and only have ourselves to blame. It's way past time to 'get real,' and get honest and cut through the propaganda and pious pretentious. & may God help us all.
We're way too close to the edge for comfort.
04:32 AM on 02/20/2012
Consider these quotes from Paul Keim, acting chair of the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) from a Q&A in the Nature journal: "Reasons for proposed redaction of flu paper". Nature. Vol. 482. 9 February 2012. 156-157:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/482156a.html

During the Q&A Dr Keim made some most interesting comments such as:

"H5N1 has been in birds since at least 1996, and despite the almost 600 human infections of which we are aware,this virus has not yet become efficiently transmissible between mammals. There might be good reasons why it hasn't achieved this capacity, including inherent biological limitations."

"The artificial evolution of a new mammal-adapted H5N1 virus, as reported in these two papers, has removed the natural barriers that might have existed. Accomplishing this in the lab, however, doesn't mean that it can occur naturally."

"We also need to consider the potential role of, and impact on, other species. Pigs are a well-known ‘mixing vessel’ for influenza viruses. This mixing could lead to the emergence of new antigenically shifted viruses."
04:22 AM on 02/20/2012
It is incredible that the industry-funded Erasmus laboratory is actually involved in creating a supposedly 'lethal flu virus', in cahoots with the US National Institutes of Health.

So now we have the threat of a supposedly deadly virus. So what now after this fear-mongering? Is their intention to insist the entire world population be vaccinated against this lab-created virus? The Swine Flu pandemic was a flop, so they want to do a really good job next time and artificially engineer a more effective deadly virus and sell billions of vaccines? Really, you could not make this stuff up… (And have another look at the movie Contagion – pure fear-mongering propaganda for the CDC.)

What if this supposedly deadly virus escapes the lab and sickness and death ensue? Who will bear the moral and financial responsibility? The US/NIH? The scientists concerned? How does this lab created 'deadly virus' figure with the Biological Weapons Convention?

I have forwarded an open letter to the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) outlining my concerns about this matter, providing my perspective as a 'layperson'. My open letter can be accessed via this link: http://bit.ly/AfyAtQ

I have also forwarded an email to Mr Peter Woolcott, Australia's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva to query what position the Australian government is taking on this matter.
photo
Shrank
We are sorry, your micro-bio is not PC
05:35 PM on 02/19/2012
Scientists have developed a mutant virus that, if it were released into the wild, could kill up to one-half of the world's population. Isn't it obvious that we should take the same precautions with these types of viruses as we do with nuclear weapons technology and the weapons themselves? Government oversight of the research, strict vetting of all those who conduct the research, redundant health safeguards for all those who move into and out of the laboratories, and military cordons around the lab sites. Come on folks, let's get serious.
02:55 AM on 02/20/2012
How do you know how many people these viruses could kill? Did you actually do the experiment? Or are you just writing a poor version of "Resident Evil"? Probably the latter.

What kind of precautions are we taking with nuclear weapons? Any halfway smart physicist in the world who wants to design a nuclear weapon, can design a nuclear weapon. The knowledge is all out there. What they can't do is to BUILD a nuclear weapon, because that's a large scale engineering effort, which is next to impossible to hide.

In this case the virus is completely useless as a weapon because it won't be contained to one country but it will become a global infection.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Axlotl
05:24 PM on 02/19/2012
This is pointless. Literate, field-relevant scientists *already know* what was done and the basics of how it might have been done. If another country wants their scientists to create a super-flu, they can and will. If terrorists or malevolent individuals want to make it, they're flat out of luck- the equipment and expertise to do it are far too demanding, you *can't make* this kind of thing in a cave.
03:50 PM on 02/19/2012
The masses and/or their representatives can not even balance national budgets, which are far less nuanced and orders of magnitude simpler than scientific research.

Including them in the discussion would be counter productive. Scientists tend to be curious, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake, where as the only thing Joe and Susie care about is their inane quest for a better life.