Claim On Origin of Swine Flu Virus Disputed
Biologist Adrian Gibbs, developer of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu, shocked the scientific community last week with an assertion the new H1N1 ("swine") flu virus may have resulted from a lab accident. Canadian Press reported: "After hearing of Gibbs' theory, the WHO scrambled to draw in researchers from leading human and animal influenza laboratories around the world in a bid to determine if the claim has merit and if it does, whether that changes the advice WHO gives member countries on the threat posed by the new H1N1 swine flu virus."
One of the things that bothered Gibbs was the apparent rapid rate of mutation in the virus. "Well, the data looks to me like that. And that should be checked," said Gibbs. But other researchers working on the virus say they do not see this evidence of rapid mutation. Again from Canadian Press: "We don't see evidence that there's accelerated evolution indicating that there would have been a new host that the virus was introduced into, be it eggs or any other host," said Dr. Nancy Cox, head of the influenza division at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta."
Other scientists felt that Gibbs claim was irresponsible in that it should have first been published in a technical journal for peer review before being made public. Gibbs suggestion, that the virus was possibly spawned in lab eggs used to cultivate vaccines, was obviously disturbing, for it introduces the element of human error into the recent outbreak.
Earlier speculation on the origin of the virus centered on "Patient Zero," a young Mexican boy who lived near a pork slaughterhouse that was cited for dumping waste products into nearby water sources. Smithfield, an American owned corporation, denied its activities had anything to do with the outbreak in Mexico. It would be difficult to see how this earlier story on the origin of the virus would relate to the assertions made by Gibbs. meanwhile, Ansa of Italy reported today that a leading virologist, Itaria Capua, has stated: "in a preliminary review (with WHO) we came to the conclusion, based on different points of view, that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the virus was produced in a laboratory. This theory remains an hypothesis along with many others.''
In yet a stronger statement, Medical News Today reported: "The World Health Organization (WHO) have refuted the suggestion made by Australian virologist Adrian Gibbs that the new A/H1N1 influenza virus that has infected over 6,000 people around the world was accidentally made in a lab and said that the evidence shows it is a naturally occurring virus." (Yet Gibbs has not yet formally published his report).
So the jury remains out on the origin of this virus, but the odds on favorite is that it originated naturally. It will be interesting to see the actual Gibbs report, and review peer comments when it is published. I will follow up here as soon as the data is available.
Biologist Adrian Gibbs, developer of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu, shocked the scientific community last week with an assertion the new H1N1 ("swine") flu virus may have resulted from a lab accident. Canadian Press reported: "After hearing of Gibbs' theory, the WHO scrambled to draw in researchers from leading human and animal influenza laboratories around the world in a bid to determine if the claim has merit and if it does, whether that changes the advice WHO gives member countries on the threat posed by the new H1N1 swine flu virus."
One of the things that bothered Gibbs was the apparent rapid rate of mutation in the virus. "Well, the data looks to me like that. And that should be checked," said Gibbs. But other researchers working on the virus say they do not see this evidence of rapid mutation. Again from Canadian Press: "We don't see evidence that there's accelerated evolution indicating that there would have been a new host that the virus was introduced into, be it eggs or any other host," said Dr. Nancy Cox, head of the influenza division at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta."
Other scientists felt that Gibbs claim was irresponsible in that it should have first been published in a technical journal for peer review before being made public. Gibbs suggestion, that the virus was possibly spawned in lab eggs used to cultivate vaccines, was obviously disturbing, for it introduces the element of human error into the recent outbreak.
Earlier speculation on the origin of the virus centered on "Patient Zero," a young Mexican boy who lived near a pork slaughterhouse that was cited for dumping waste products into nearby water sources. Smithfield, an American owned corporation, denied its activities had anything to do with the outbreak in Mexico. It would be difficult to see how this earlier story on the origin of the virus would relate to the assertions made by Gibbs. meanwhile, Ansa of Italy reported today that a leading virologist, Itaria Capua, has stated: "in a preliminary review (with WHO) we came to the conclusion, based on different points of view, that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the virus was produced in a laboratory. This theory remains an hypothesis along with many others.''
In yet a stronger statement, Medical News Today reported: "The World Health Organization (WHO) have refuted the suggestion made by Australian virologist Adrian Gibbs that the new A/H1N1 influenza virus that has infected over 6,000 people around the world was accidentally made in a lab and said that the evidence shows it is a naturally occurring virus." (Yet Gibbs has not yet formally published his report).
So the jury remains out on the origin of this virus, but the odds on favorite is that it originated naturally. It will be interesting to see the actual Gibbs report, and review peer comments when it is published. I will follow up here as soon as the data is available.
