West Nile Virus (Letter)

David Crowe and Jim West
Journal of Pesticide Reform
Spring, 2003

Should the mosquito that bit the Corvids (Crows, Jays, Ravens) that bit the humans that spread the virus that caused West Nile Encephalitis be sprayed with insecticides? This important question was asked by the article “Meeting the challenge of West Nile Virus Without Poisons” in the Winter, 2002 issue of the Journal of Pesticide Reform. There were, however, some important underlying assumptions that it did not state, let alone challenge: Does the virus really cause the observed illness? Are there other potential causes or co–factors? Does the virus even exist?

Does the virus cause the illness?

If someone tests positive for a virus and has symptoms, it is commonly assumed that the virus caused the symptoms. Yet this is only an assumption, especially when a virus like West Nile is detected in many times more people who have had no symptoms or only vague symptoms, than those with illness. In one household survey, in the New York area, 2.6% of people tested positive, but none reported symptoms more severe than a recent fever [Mostashari, 2001]. Additionally, there is no proof that these people were all seronegative before the supposed 1999 outbreak. If the prevailing logic continues, then the list of symptoms associated with the disease will continue to expand. Already, two groups of scientists have proposed that paralytic polio symptoms be added to the list, merely because patients with these symptoms tested positive [Glass, 2002; Leis, 2002].

Clinical symptoms, said to be specific for West Nile disease, are actually of little use. The CDC notes that symptoms (when present) “are usually indistinguishable from similar syndromes caused by other viruses.” [CDC, 2002] According to the CDC, only a positive test is required to diagnose the cause, with some help from the perceived likelihood of virus transmission occurring (e.g. mosquito activity).

Are there other possible causes?

In the first outbreak of West Nile encephalitis, in New York City, 1999, the incidence of autopsied birds testing positive for the virus correlated well with levels of air pollution (see Figure 1). Higher incidence occurred where concentrations of MTBE, a controversial gasoline additive, were mandated [West, 2003]. The recent human epidemic epicenter in Louisiana may be related to the 130 petrochemical refineries in the region. Canadian data also indicates that the highest incidence was found in the major transportation corridors and industrialized areas of Ontario and Quebec [CCWHC, 2002]. Denis Summers–Smith, the leading British authority on sparrows (and a chemical engineer) believes that unleaded gasoline additives, particularly MTBE and benzene, are responsible for the dramatic decline in urban populations of this bird [McCarthy, 2000].

A study in Philadelphia showed an increase in visits to medical clinics for a number of symptoms related to neurological disease, after MTBE levels were increased in 1992, particularly in the winter when levels were highest [Joseph, 2002]. Another scientist claims that “the addition of MTBE to gasoline has not accomplished its stated goal of decreasing air pollution, and it has posed serious health risks to a large portion of the population, particularly the elderly and those with respiratory problems, asthma, and skin sensitivity.” [Mehlman, 2002]

Does the virus exist?

Scientists, the media and lay people may argue over the best course of action when a new infectious disease threat is declared by the CDC, but few have the temerity to question its very existence. A 1999 paper in the journal Science claimed to have isolated West Nile virus from birds and mosquitoes [Anderson, 1999], but a close analysis of this research shows that its use of the term ‘isolation’ is misleading. The researchers passed pulverized crow brains or whole mosquitoes through a filter with pores several times larger than the putative virus, and then added this impure material to a cell culture. After several days they claimed ‘isolation of the virus’ based on a number of non–specific findings – cell death, particles of the expected size, and reactions with antibodies to related viruses. Purification was obviously not achieved, yet according to at least one virologist, Dr. Etienne de Harven (emeritus Professor, University of Toronto), “To obtain virus specific reagents [such as antibodies], purification is essential. But the success of such purification should be demonstrated. And the best way to demonstrate the achieved level of purification is to study, by electron microscopy, thin sections of pelletized [centrifuged] virus!” [de Harven, 2002]

Conclusions

Opponents of mosquito spraying who uncritically accept the virus theory have already ceded half the battle. Use of the name ‘West Nile Encephalitis’ implies causation, which triggers pesticide laden public health protocols against “vectors”. These automated, non–democratic campaigns are promoted by the CDC and other public health agencies. Such agencies suffer an innate bias because their funding is directed principally towards infectious disease.

The faithful acceptance of strongly hyped underlying assumptions will facilitate diversions such as pesticide campaigns and disease misdiagnoses, thus impeding an accurate evaluation of pollution–caused epidemics. Concerned people who familiarize themselves with the West Nile Virus and MTBE literature will be able to