# 303
Okay, I’m going to quibble here. Perhaps this is simply a language difficulty, or the result of an over simplification for the press. But the following English language report in the Jakarta Press caught my eye.
A panel of experts has claimed `no mutation’ in the latest avian flu outbreak. It is very reassuring at a time when people are understandably worried in Jakarta. But it sounds suspiciously like the pronouncements made last May during the Karo outbreaks, when we were told there were no `significant’ mutations.
Then, much later, we were told there were more than 20 mutations. But they weren’t dangerous.
First an excerpt from the article:
Officials say no mutation in latest avian influenza outbreak
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Authorities are dismissing speculation that bird flu has mutated in its latest outbreak, which killed a 14-year-old boy Wednesday and a 37-year-old woman the next day.
Accompanied by a panel of experts, the head of the National Commission for Avian Influenza and Pandemic Preparedness, Bayu Krisnamurthi, also denied a more virulent virus caused the outbreak.
He said the pattern of transmission remained the same, from chicken to human. He added that further study must to be done to discover whether ducks could also pass the virus to humans.
"There is a variety of hosts, but so far there is no scientific evidence that other animals can spread the virus to human beings besides chickens. The virus found in other animals is still the avian virus and has not yet transformed into a new variant," he said before the panel of experts in Jakarta.
I’m always a bit suspicious when I see blanket statements made with an absence of scientific data to back them up. Have they actually run the sequences? Or is this simply based on observation of the patients and the histories collected to date?
My suspicion is the latter: That they have seen no evidence (to date) of an abrupt change in the mode of transmission.
From half a world away, and privy only to public news releases, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that would lead me to believe they are experiencing H2H (human to human) transmission of the virus, and I suspect that is what they are trying to convey here.
The 10-day delay of onset of symptoms between Riyah and her family is worrisome, but could be explained by factors other than H2H transmission. As H2H has been exceedingly rare in the past, pending additional data, it’s hard to jump to the conclusion that this is a case of human to human transmission.
Nevertheless, pronouncements such as the one in the article above appear to be geared more towards quelling public concern than towards advancing scientific knowledge.
As I said, this is a quibble, mostly over the imprecise use of scientific terms.
Mutations can signify many things, and involve more than just H2H transmission. But in the public mind, they are waiting for the `mutation’ that turns this virus into a pandemic, and that is what I believe this panel was addressing.
While I find it irksome from a scientific viewpoint, I do understand their motivation.
As to whether any mutations have occurred, we won’t know that until the sequences are released.
