Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Zika Virus and Microcephaly Underreporting in Colombia

posted by on Monday December 12 2016, @07:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the reporting-slipped-our-minds dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Science magazine reports:

A far higher number of babies in Colombia have developed microcephaly related to Zika virus infections than previously reported. [...] It now appears that incomplete reporting may explain some of the disparity.

[...] the CDC and Colombia's ministry of health and national institute of health, offers "preliminary information" about 476 cases of microcephaly identified over the last 11 months. In contrast, the latest World Health Organization (WHO) "situation report", with data current to 7 December, said that Colombia had only reported 60 cases

[...] Zika is probably not to blame for all of the 476 cases. The paper reports that 306 of the affected babies were tested for Zika virus infection with the ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction that detects viral RNA or immune markers. Just under half, 147, had evidence of Zika virus infection.

Full paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6549e1.htm

WHO report (pdf) http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/251905/1/zikasitrep8Dec2016-eng.pdf?ua=1

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Zika Virus and Microcephaly Underreporting in Colombia | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:03PM (#440409)

    Also, the antibody tests for zika are not specific at all:
    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=14263&cid=367512#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

    Another thing, the science editorial contains "fake news" about this important aspect, even going so far as to stress the "ultrasensitive" nature of PCR. It says

    "The paper reports that 306 of the affected babies were tested for Zika virus infection with the ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction that detects viral RNA or immune markers."

    This is wrong, from the report:

    "Specimens are tested for Zika virus RNA by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), for serologic evidence of infection by Zika immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA), or for Zika viral antigens by immunohistochemistry
    [...]
    147 (48%) had laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection by RT-PCR or immunohistochemistry"

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6549e1.htm [cdc.gov]

    So only some unspecified percentage were tested with PCR.