It was YOU – 2006 Person of the Year according to Time magazine. You – meaning user who contributes to the Internet. Homo Interneticus, in other words. You could even see your face in the glossy mirror surface on a magazine cover. And, here’s the trick – YOU should have been chosen as 2020 Person of the Year, though with a different status quo now – Homo Covidicus. You too can see yourself in all the reflective surfaces: a face covered with a mask. A similar mask underneath a similar face. A faceless human in a bedsheet bag, breathing through it, talking through it, kissing through it. Just like Magritte’s famous paintings.

Talk to me, Homo Covidicus. Tell me your stories to share with our next generation – Homo (hopefully) Post-Covidicus.

– I am tired of this endless medical treatment, dear. Please let me go.

When it all started, nobody was ready to accept this new reality that reminds you more of an anti-utopia. “It’s far away, on another hemisphere of the planet,” some of us thought. “It’s all fake news and provocation,” others calmed themselves down. “Isn’t it a new TV show?” It was not. The global village, as Marshall McLuhan called our digital mobile world, appeared to be small indeed. In this teeny-tiny world, a biological virus can affect all of humanity in two shakes. Like a computer virus – in two clicks.

– Mom, why do all people “muzzle” their faces like doggies?

So, our global village was not ready for such a new challenge. Neither governments with international organizations, nor the medical sphere with world scientists. It was out of the blue and beyond human comprehension. A new protective dress code was not enough. There was a need for a new life code. And for a new way of thinking in particular. Still, as we all perfectly know now, it was not a matter of one day. Of one lost life. (Unless it’s your life, of course, or the life of your loved ones.)

– Have you ever seen so many wild rabbits peacefully walking on the city streets? They aren’t even afraid of the clamorous echoes of ambulance sirens!

A new life code required a new language to explain phenomena that emerged. Like George Orwell’s Newspeak in his 1984 novel. Covid dystopia needed some kind of Covidspeak. A new lexicon appeared instantly and was spread virally from mouth to mouth, easily overcoming masks, protective shields, walls, and quarantine lockdowns, like a bio virus itself. Soon, we all got used to those strange frightening words such as antigen test, PPE, Coronavirus, pandemic, quarantine, self-isolation, SARS-CoV-2, super-spreader, transmission, viral shedding, and many more. Sounds like a transcript to the sequel to Alien, right? Alas. It’s been a scenario based on real, ongoing facts with you us as protagonists.

– Let’s do a covideo party! I’ll have a beer… hm…“Corona Extra”! And you?

To euphemize a severe reality, Homo Covidicus started coining funny neologisms and paraphrases in one’s native languages (some of them available on #ReframeCovid.) For example, “covidiot” (someone who ignores public health advice), “covideo party” (online party via Zoom or Skype), “covexit” (a strategy for exiting lockdown), “zoomby” (Zoom user), “zoombombing” (hijacking a Zoom video call), “WFH” (working from home), “quaranteams” (online teams created during lockdown), etc. Nevertheless, it’s hard to laugh in the face of “covidance.”

– Excuse me sir, your temperature is higher than normal. I’m afraid I can’t let you in.

Communication itself has become different. First and foremost, because of mediation. The word online became so ordinary that we somehow didn’t notice when an authentic word live was replaced into the artificial offline. Foci have been changed. Our conversations have turned into zoomversations. With a comfortable option to turn off your video camera, to mute yourself, to become just a black Malevich square on somebody’s monitor. To stay invisible but still present. Or vice versa – to pretend presence while you are absent. A new way of digital mimicry. Zoomversation as a nonversation. Homo Covidicus, you we are true virtuosos in this craft! Hence, speaking into the monitor has become speaking into the air. In the meantime, speaking into the real air has taken on a new semantic shade and nostalgic taste.

– All of them… they die in complete loneliness in their wards. Relatives are not allowed to take care of them during their last hours. No one holds their hands as they pass away.      

Technology. It has become deeply rooted into our bodies, converting into extensions of our body parts. It was actually predicted by media and communication research half a century ago (M. McLuhan, N. Postman, G. Sartory, etc.). Homo Covidicus has been becoming transformed into such a Techno Centaurus – with technology instead of part of a horse. With a third digital arm or a third organic ear, like in the anthropo-digital experiments of the Australian performer Stelarc. All those smart phones, tablets, monitors, our faithful slaves, our true angels, our digital bodyguards gradually and unnoticeably have been turning us into their slaves. “Oh Ford!” – we can revoice Aldous Huxley’s heroes from Brave New World. Our world, though, has no arguments to declare itself brave any more.

– Hello? Please help me. I’m… ummmm… a victim of domestic abuse. I have no place to escape from this lockdown cage… I need legal assistance.

And so, we have started to appreciate simple things again. Open faces. Scents and touches. Smiles and kisses. Handshakes and hugs. It appeared that communication online loses its main features: affinity, intimacy, closeness, inner light, half-tones, micro-moves. The main optics and micro-proxemics in a true relationship. True signs of love. Thus, Homo Covidicus got tired of the necessity of being connected without true connection. Of being mobile without true motion. Of staying tuned without real engagement. Tired from all that complete simulacrum. Seems like a materialization of the Wachowskis’ The Matrix, isn’t it? The main difference here is – we all realize our condition. And that very insight brings even more drama into our lives.

– My apology ma’am, your Covid test is positive. You can’t cross our border. Our officer will escort you to Gate 57 now, and you will be immediately sent back to your country on a special emergency flight.

Homo Covidicus started to treasure its life space by means of its functionality. We used to recognize things only when we would lose them. The same thing here: we started to treasure home only after it had become our office, our daily working space. Not a place to escape from daily routine, deadlines, colleagues, and duties, not a comfort zone anymore. Not a reliable shelter to hide from this fussy world. Homo Covidicus has missed its own home at home.

– Dear, should we order pizza or go to the nearest McDonalds drive-through?

Our daily routine has been utterly changed. We now need to share space with other family members, organize our working place taking into consideration all things that might happen and do usually happen everywhere at home (especially pop-in-pets, pop-up-kids, anything that can unexpectedly break through your defense.) On the other hand, we are trying not to cross someone else’s work frontier. Therefore, we need to correlate our schedules and Zoom-meetings in advance, arranging beforehand who will guard the relative quietness on each other’s backstage, who will carry all those things on his or her shoulders like Atlas. Until it’s finally your turn for Zoom, and now you can shrug with relief.

– Mom, dad fell asleep and I need to pee… hey! [waiving hello to mom’s colleagues via the unmuted Zoom].

Homo Covidicus became similar to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who gave the instruction Memento Mori! (remember your mortality) and Carpe diem! (seize the day). Now, Homo Covidicus does count every day of his/her life, does remind him/herself of the inevitability of death. One by one losing his/her relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors, lovers, teachers, favorite movie actors, football players, musicians, and… maybe even themselves. There is not a single Homo Covidicus who would not lose a loved one. Otherwise s/he cannot be a true Homo Covidicus.

– My oxygen saturation has rapidly gone down; I can hardly speak now. I’ve sent you all the passwords to my credit cards and accounts. Don’t cry. Save them. Just in case…

Just in case – is the most common phrase, if not on the tips of our tongues, then in between our lines. During the pandemic, our relatives have become as close to us as they have never been before. Paradoxically, these walls make people closer. More sensitive, kind, caring, thoughtful, religious, and prayerful. More open and empathic. More human. Homo Covidicus has re-identified (Covidentified?) him/herself first and foremost as homo.    

– Tell me how she died, dad, tell me everything in detail. Take pictures at her burial, of her lying in the coffin. Promise me! I need to have it in my memories too, in my mind, as if I were there with you, across the Atlantic.

The New York Times published “An Incalculable Loss” on 24 May 2020. Its first page was fully covered with names and brief descriptions of the “grim milestone” of 100,000 Americans who had died from coronavirus. A new tragic chapter in a new history. A new way of paying tribute to victims. A new way of storytelling: Marion Krueger, 85, Kirkland, Wash. Great-grandmother with an easy laugh. John-Sebastian Laird-Hammond, 59, Washington D.C. Member of a Franciscan monastery. George Freeman Winfield, 72, Shelburne, Vt. Could make anything grow. Kious Kelly, 48, New York City. Nurse in the Covid fight. Wanda Bailey, 63, Crete, Ill. One of nine siblings. Skylar Herbert, 5, Detroit. Michigan’s youngest victim of the coronavirus pandemic (…)

– Can you write there simply: Loved her children? That’s all I want.

My seven-year-old daughter asked me once what number COVID is. I didn’t understand her question until she explained it to me. At school, they had just learned numbers written in Roman numerals. And, if to look at the word COVID from that prospective, you can identify many Roman numerals there. Indeed! “It’s a tricky word,” I answered my daughter. “Because nobody knows its exact number. The number of people it would stop on.” Then she told me that this number-word should be positive no matter what, because it had her favorite V within it. Her favorite V reminded her of a flying bird.

– Can you take care of my Brisko, if… if… you know what I mean. Would you?

Now I, too, see a flying bird in this frightening number-word. I see how much we have all learned from this “lesson.” How devotedly we can fight for those whom we love and for those whom we see for the first time in our lives. How cohesively we can support each other by singing all together from our condo balconies or buying and leaving groceries near our neighbor’s doors. How inventive we have been to unlock this lockdown with omni-purpose keys of love, faith, and humanity.

“Sometimes / the iron in a lock / must be thinking / why was I moulded / into something as such! / A life that came / with boldness /got swept into / isolation — by the tongue / of a melancholic rust / hanging like a slave / to the will of the key / and fingers.” [“Locked” by Sonnet Mondal].

So, who are you – Homo Covidicus? Who are we? Bones of Bones, flesh of Flesh, homo of Homo? “Moulded into something as such.” What is your mission on this Earth? What is your fate? What is your covidentification? For how long will your shadow be shrouding your light ahead? What is your swan song, Homo Covidicus? What is your main story among all of them? I cannot choose – all of them reveal your our soul.

– Can you smell the coffee? Are you sure? Thank God.

It has been over half a year since Covid-19 swept across the world and forced many countries into quarantine. Hopes of a quick resolution of the disease in many countries have since been, unfortunately, proven to be wrong, and it is evident that the virus is here to stay for a while [1]. The virus is so difficult to deal with considering it can be transferred from person to person even if the carrier does not outwardly display symptoms. Even animals, ranging from mice to tigers, can contract and transmit it to humans [2, 3], and we cannot quarantine or force them to wear facemasks. The virus will eventually hit each person; it is just a matter of time. The virus may additionally arrive in multiple waves, as it is possible to be reinfected [4]. COVID-19 will most likely have a lifespan of a few years, much like other major virus outbreaks of the past such as the swine flu in Hong Kong or Spanish flu. It will probably come and go like a common flu in never ending waves. So, each of us need to be ready until a successful vaccine is developed, and the wisest action for each person to be ready would be to boost our immune systems and practice effective social distancing and sanitation measures, while we deal with this virus for however long it may last.

Vaccines are critical for stunting the development and spread of viruses; however, they can be costly, time-intensive to develop, and not always perfect. It is worth exploring alternative methods to help protect our bodies from these pathological invaders while vaccines are being researched. As it so happens, the best method of prevention to date for HIV infections is not a vaccine, but is instead a tradition that is as old as thousands of years: male circumcision [5]. To give a comparison, the current widely popular and heavily promoted influenza vaccine is considered “50% effective against influenza B/Victoria viruses and 37% effective against influenza A(H1N1)” [6]. On the other hand, according to an article published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, circumcision is up to 88% effective in preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV [7]. Male circumcision does not have any medicinal side effects, and the only risks that are involved are those related to any minor surgery – bleeding and infection.

In the 1980s, when I first heard of HIV, I remember reading articles which claimed, quite arrogantly, that vaccines and cures for the condition would be found within two or three years [8]. Forty years later, and after spending many billions of dollars on research, we are still nowhere near an HIV vaccine. At best, we found treatments which helped keep the HIV virus at bay [9]. To date, only two people have been fully cured with a method far too expensive to be applied to the general public [10]. In the meantime, at least 30 million people have died with more than half a million in the year 2019 alone [11]. While vaccines are critical for helping to eradicate viruses, putting all of our eggs into that basket alone can be a risky public health strategy due to how difficult and time consuming they are to discover, verify, and distribute. It is impossible to know for sure how long it will take to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. In the meantime, communities should heavily consider following the instructions of their local health officials which often include social distancing, limited size gatherings, and frequent hand washing as these methods are already proven to help reduce the spread of the virus.

Development, and even the rushed development of a vaccine, is always a very tedious and dangerous process. The science behind them is exceptionally complex, and imperfect results can have disastrous consequences upon thousands of people. This is further complicated by the fact that phase 2 and phase 3 trials can have quite diverging results [12]. In the USA, AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine trials were stopped after trial participants fell ill [13]. Third phase trials, which encompass thousands of people [14], still can give little indication of the long-term side effects to any vaccine. Besides, even though there is human life at risk, the vaccine has already become an instrument for many political and economic disputes and conspiracy theories. Some governments claim they have already developed a vaccine, while others find them unreliable, or try to lure a foreign company to work for themselves [15]. In August of this year Russia rushed registration of an unproven Coronavirus vaccine and named it, in Cold-War-like fashion, the “Sputnik V” [16]. The announcement was made by none other than Vladimir Putin himself. It was offered to the USA, but was rejected due to safety concerns stemming from a belief that the drug was not adequately researched and developed [17]. In the meantime, Russia announced the development of a second vaccine [18]. Surely enough, it was dismissed and downplayed by the West as unproven and unreliable. On the other hand, a vaccine developed by a Chinese company Sinovac proved to be the most successful in its phase 3 trials in Brazil [19]. Sao Paulo Governor João Doria purchased 47 million shots of the vaccine. However, the transaction was stopped, arguably for political reasons, by the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro [20]. Bolsonaro’s comments when rejecting the purchase of the Sinovac vaccine on the basis that “the Brazilian people will not be anyone’s guinea pig” are not totally without merit. Recalls of “proven and tested” vaccines have happened in the past [21].

It is important for all people to continue exploring methods to develop their immune systems and prevent the spread of the virus while we wait for a vaccine. In an article I had previously published, I discussed the benefits of fasting, vitamin C, and Wim Hof breathing methods to help protect the body from disease [22]. All of these methods are well known and quite benign with respect to side effects, however they are unable to cure Covid-19 or prevent its spread. Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has heavily stressed practices included social distancing and the wearing of non-ventilated face masks. Our hope is that going above and beyond to protect ourselves and our neighbors will give scientists the time that they need.

One way of giving that time to scientists is fasting. Fasting, like circumcision, is a tradition that is thousands of years old. In recent studies, a three-day water fast has been shown to reset the immune system of elderly people to the level of a twenty-year old’s [23]. At this current level of emergency in the world it would be very easy to find thousands of willing volunteers to trial monthly three-day water fasts and/or to take extra doses of vitamin C, not as a cure, but as a shield against COVID-19. This kind of study would not pose much risk and would definitely be very cost-effective. We could dive straight into the third phase of trials, for any side effects of fasting are already well known. And finally, if proven effective, its uptake by the population at large would be basically cost free and readily available across the whole world.

Our world has been enduring a difficult and challenging period for the better half of a year now. Time has given us the ability to learn more about the virus, how it disrupts our bodies, and how it spreads. This knowledge has, in turn, allowed us to research it and develop effective social guidelines for limiting its spread. Still, there is much work to be done. Hysteria and haste are not conducive to producing a vaccine that is thorough, effective, and efficient. It should be the responsibility of every able-bodied citizen to do what they can to learn more about how they can protect themselves from the virus and thus prevent it from spreading even more while we wait for a vaccine.

1. https://www.wuky.org/post/beshear-next-few-weeks-will-be-critical#stream/0
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/09/03/coronavirus-deer-mice-spread/
3. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7326402/
5. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)03421-2/fulltext?_eventId=login
6. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20200226interimfluve.html
7. Halperin, D. T., & Bailey, R. C. (1999). Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. The Lancet, 354(9192), 1813-5. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)03421-2
8. https://www.immunology.org/publications/bsi-reports/60-years-immunology-past-present-and-future/the-hunt-for-hiv-vaccine
9. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/livingwithhiv/treatment.html
10. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2nd-person-cured-of-hiv-thanks-to-stem-cell-transplant
11. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet
12. https://www.fda.gov/media/102332/download
13. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/09/09/covid-vaccine-astrazeneca-trial-hold-what-does-mean/5757590002/
14. cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/clinical-trials/what-you-need-to-know/phases-of-clinical-trials.html
15. 15 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/world/europe/cornonavirus-vaccine-us-germany.html
16. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363135/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-unproven-registration
17. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/251792/20200814/covid-19-us-says-no-to-russias-vaccine-sputnik-v-saying-theyll-never-use-it-on-monkeys-let-alone-people-vietnam-and-philippines-say-otherwise.htm
18. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/russia-approves-2nd-virus-vaccine-early-trials-73614460
19. https://fortune.com/2020/10/20/covid-vaccine-china-brazil-testing-ground-safest-most-promising-sinovac/
20. https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-brazil-state-governments-health-sao-paulo-b7b5b620ba54f402dbf803e26fe6b842
21. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/recalls.html
22. https://medium.com/@arasweb/surviving-the-pandemic-370b47120d8d
23. https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/

Nose cells as the key COVID-19 entry point

Sungnak et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nature Medicine, April 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Detection of the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China and has since spread worldwide and emerged as a global pandemic. COVID-19 primarily affects the lungs and airways and has a wide range of symptoms including fever, coughing, and sore throat. One of the scariest aspects of the virus is that some people may not manifest symptoms but can still carry and spread it. In severe cases, the virus causes pneumonia that can ultimately lead to death. Studies suggest that the virus is thought to be spread through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes and appears to be easily transmitted within affected areas. COVID-19 has spread to more than 184 countries and claimed more than 190,000 lives so far. One of the major questions scientists around the world are trying to understand is how the virus spreads, how we can prevent transmission, and how we can develop an effective vaccine. To discover the target cells involved in COVID-19 transmission, scientists analyzed the gene expression profiles of thousands of cells from 20 different human tissues including the lung, nasal cavity, eye, gut, heart, kidney, and liver. They specifically looked for individual cell types that expressed both of two key COVID-19 entry proteins – the receptor protein ACE2 and the TMPRSS2 protease. These analyses revealed that mucus-producing goblet cells and ciliated cells on the inner lining of the nose have the highest level of COVID-19 virus proteins of all cells in the airways. While there are many external and internal factors that contribute to the virus’ transmissibility, these findings are consistent with the rapid infection rates of the virus. The location of these cells on the surface of the inside of the nose makes them highly accessible to the virus and also may assist with transmission to other people. Interestingly, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were also found in cells in the cornea of the eye and in the lining of the intestine. This suggests another possible route of infection via the eye and tear ducts, and also revealed a potential for fecal-oral transmission. These findings have important implications for understanding viral transmissibility and could have critical translational implications. For example, given that nasal carriage is likely to be a key feature of transmission, drugs and vaccines administered intra-nasally could be highly effective in limiting the spread of the virus.

Neutrinos Could Explain Why the Universe Has So Much More Matter Than Antimatter

The T2K Collaboration. Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Nature, April 2020

The current laws of physics propose that 13.8 billion years ago, at the time of the Big Bang, every particle of matter had been created with a counterpart called antimatter. Antimatter is precisely the same as matter but with an opposite physical property such as an electrical charge. The great mystery for physicists is why there is so much more matter than antimatter in the universe. If there had been equal quantities in the beginning then each particle would have wiped each other out in a blaze of energy and left the universe full of just photons and dark matter. To understand the mystery behind this asymmetry, scientists have utilized an experiment known as “T2K.” T2K is a collaboration between 500 international scientists that employs a proton accelerator in Japan that generates beams of subatomic particles called muon neutrinos and antineutrinos which then travel 295 km to the gigantic Super-Kamiokande detector, located in a tank filled with 50,000 tons of water under a mountain in Kamioka on Japan’s west coast. During this trip, the muon neutrinos and antineutrinos change in flight to electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, demonstrating the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. The team observed for the first time that there is a significant difference between neutrino and antineutrino oscillations. Neutrinos were found to turn into electron neutrinos at a much higher rate than their antineutrino counterparts and, as a result, would propagate regular matter at a higher rate than antimatter. These results show that although matter and antimatter look so similar to each other, they can behave completely different. Previously, scientists have found some differences in behavior between matter and antimatter versions of other subatomic particles called quarks, but the differences observed did not seem to be large enough to account for the dominance of matter in the universe. This new data indicates that subatomic particle neutrinos might be the very reason the universe is dominated by matter. While the scientific community is very excited about these results, most experts suggest collecting a lot more data in order to get the confidence level of their results up over the current ratio of 95%.

Humans Tend To Go With Our “Gut Feelings” Over Evidence-based Decisions

Konovalov& Krajbich. Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice. Nature Communications, April 2020.

A new study showed that when faced with a decision, humans prefer to follow their “gut feeling” or habits instead of taking all facts into account. In the study, participants played a simple computer game in which identifying patterns could make them more money. While following the patterns led to success most of the time, there was still a 10-40% chance that it would not give the best outcome. The researchers observed that 56 of the 57 participants were able to identify the pattern to make the decision that gave them the highest chance of success. However, only about 20% of players consistently went with that choice after it failed them. The other 80% of players diverged and made choices based upon their gut feelings. The researchers suggest that participants decided to go with their gut feelings when making in-game decisions because choosing the best pattern only led to a slightly higher chance of success. This study highlights how decision-making works in real life. People can learn what choices lead to the best outcomes; but putting that knowledge into practice can often be difficult as it likely takes a lot of mental and sometimes physical energy to always make decisions based upon your knowledge of your current environment. Moreover, the rewards of following the best strategy aren’t always obvious in real life. Following a familiar strategy may increase your success by only a small percentage. In our decision making, there is always the dilemma – what we should do from a statistical perspective versus what worked out well recently, typically in an anecdotal manner.

Andersen KG et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, March 2020.

Cases of Covid-19 first emerged in December 2019, when a mysterious illness was reported in in the city of Wuhan, China. The cause of the disease was soon confirmed as a new kind of coronavirus, and the infection has since caused a large-scale epidemic and spread to more than 70 other countries. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are related to a broad spectrum of illnesses, the first of which was the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in China. A second outbreak of severe illnesses began in 2012 in Saudi Arabia with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). On December 31 of 2019, Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organization of an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 causing severe illness. As of February 20, 2020, nearly 167,500 Covid-19 cases have been reported, though many milder cases have likely gone undiagnosed. More than 6,600 people have already died as a result of contracting this virus – and the numbers will be much higher when you will be reading this article. Chinese scientists sequenced the genome of SARS-CoV-2 very shortly after the epidemic began and made the data available worldwide. The analyses of genomic sequence data have shown that Chinese authorities rapidly detected the epidemic and that the number of Covid-19 cases have been increasing because of human to human transmission after a single introduction into the human population.

Recently, a group of scientists used this sequencing data to explore the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it has become the version that it is now. The scientists specifically focused on the genetic codes for spike proteins, the mechanical framework on the outside of the virus that it uses to grab and penetrate the outer walls of human and animal cells. There are 2 major parts of the spike proteins: the receptor-binding domain (RBD), a molecular hook that grips onto host cells, and the cleavage site, a molecular can opener that allows the virus to crack open and enter host cells. The scientists found that the RBD portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins mutated to effectively target a molecular feature on the outside of human cells called ACE2, a receptor normally involved in regulating blood pressure. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was exceptionally effective at binding to human cells, and the scientists concluded this could only be a product after a natural selection process and not the product of human-designed genetic engineering. This evidence was further strengthened by data on SARS-CoV-2’s backbone molecular structure. If someone were to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness. But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins. These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, basically ruled out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2. Based on their genomic sequencing analysis, scientists came up with two possible scenarios as the most likely origins for SARS-CoV-2.

In the first scenario, the current pathogenic state of SARS-CoV-2 has emerged naturally in non-human hosts such as bats or pangolins and then jumped to humans. Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination. In fact, this is exactly how previous coronavirus outbreaks have emerged, with humans contracting the virus after direct exposure to civets (SARS) and camels (MERS). The researchers proposed horseshoe bats as the most likely reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 as it is very similar to a bat coronavirus. There are no documented cases of direct bat-human transmission so far, suggesting that an intermediate host was likely involved between bats and humans.

In this particular scenario, both of the distinctive features of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein and the cleavage site would have mutated to their current pathogenic state prior to entering humans. In this case, the current epidemic would probably have emerged rapidly as soon as humans were infected, as the virus would have already equipped with the features that make it pathogenic and able to spread between people.

In the second proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and after a mutation process it has acquired its current pathogenic state within the human population. For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins, armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa, have a spike protein very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2. A coronavirus from a pangolin could possibly have been transmitted to a human, either directly or through an intermediary host such as civets or ferrets.

In this scenario, only the cleavage site could have mutated within a human host, possibly via limited undetected circulation in the human population for months or maybe years prior to the beginning of the epidemic. The researchers found that the SARS-CoV-2 cleavage sites have similarities that resemble strains of bird flu that can transmit easily between people. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, such a virulent cleavage site could have been formed in human cells and soon the current epidemic got initiated, as the coronavirus would possibly have become far more capable of spreading between people.

At this point, it is almost impossible to know for sure which of the scenarios is most likely. If the SARS-CoV-2 entered humans in its current pathogenic form from an animal source, it raises the probability of future outbreaks, as the illness-causing strain of the virus could still be circulating in those animal populations and might come back to humans again. It is still noteworthy that a non-pathogenic coronavirus entering the human population and then acquiring properties similar to SARS-CoV-2, the second scenario, is less likely than the first scenario.

In conclusion, this study brings an evidence-based view to the baseless rumors and conspiracy theories that the SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately manufactured in a lab and concludes that the virus has emerged after a natural process that took place in multiple hosts over time. These genetic findings are also consistent with how SARS-CoV2 is currently behaving. The virus has a low fatality rate (1% to 3.4%) and does not seem to act like a bioweapon compared to pathogens such as anthrax or Ebola. Given the previous coronavirus epidemics and the persistence of the culture of eating exotic mammals in China and other parts of the world, the current COVID19 epidemic is unfortunately not a big surprise for scientists and experts. We have to take necessary measures to be more prepared for such outbreaks that may take place in future.

Engineers have developed a new tool which can test for both past and current viral infections by analyzing a single drop of a patient’s blood. The new method, known as VirScan (Systematic Viral Epitope Scanning), is superior to existing technologies, which are only able to search for a single virus at a time. When we are infected by a virus, our immune system starts fighting it by producing antibodies that neutralize the foreign object that is carrying disease. VirScan simply screens those antibodies that are produced against any of the 1000 strains of the total 206 virus species known to infect humans. Since our immune system continues to produce these antibodies even long after the virus disappears, VirScan is able to detect both current and past infections. As a pilot study, scientists have used VirScan to screen the blood of 569 people in the US, South Africa, Peru, and Thailand. The findings showed that each patient, on average, had antibodies for around 10 different species of virus. They also found that blood samples from patients with HIV showed a larger number of antibodies for different viruses than those without HIV. The test is relatively simple and will only cost $25. VirScan will be particularly useful in underdeveloped regions of the world, where it can be used to track disease patterns among various global populations and to develop targeted therapeutic approaches.

New Computers Run on Water Droplets

After a decade of hard work, scientists have finally created a working computer based on the physical movement of water droplets. They devised a system in which water droplets are trapped in a magnetic field. When the field is rotated or flipped, droplets move in precise directions and distances, resulting in a synchronous computer based entirely on the physics of water. Researchers applied the physics of moving droplets to the operating clock, an essential component of any computer or computer-driven devices such as smartphones, airplanes, and even the internet. Almost every computer program runs several simultaneous operations and a clock ensures that the information is synchronized. In theory, the new line of computers can perform the very same operations as common computers, although a computer based on the physical movement of water will clearly run much slower than a conventional computer based on the movement of electrons. But scientists do not aim to compete with super-fast liquid CPU computers anyway; their goal is to build a completely new class of computers that can manipulate physical matters instead of bits of information. The current chips of new computers are about half the size of a postage stamp, and the droplets are smaller than poppy seeds. The fact that the magnetic field can control millions of droplets simultaneously makes the system exceptionally scalable. Scientists foresee that this technology can potentially turn computers into high-throughput chemistry and biology laboratories. Instead of running reactions in test tubes, each droplet can carry some chemicals and become its own test tube, and the droplet computer offers extraordinary control over these interactions.

Cosmic Dance at the Far End of Our Solar System

Astronomers find that 4.5 billion miles away, the Pluto system is more peculiar and complicated than anyone predicted. Hubble Space Telescope images revealed that Pluto, with its largest moon, Charon, and smaller moons Styx, Nix, Hydra, and Kerberos, shows unconventional rhythmic gyrations unlike anything in our solar system. Scientists suggest that this unpredictable lunar behavior stems from the gravitational pull exerted by Charon. Since Pluto and Charon are close in size, instead of one orbiting the other, they jointly orbit around a common center of gravity. It is like two unequal weights at the ends of a dumbbell, and the dumbbell is rotating. Astronomers called this phenomenon a “binary planet.” While Pluto and Charon perform their movements, the four little moons circle them, wobbling a bit when they go closer to either Pluto or Charon, being pushed and pulled by the two bigger objects. Since the small moons don’t have enough mass for their internal gravity to keep them in a round shape, they look more like American footballs than spheres. With the small moons wobbling and flipping around in unpredictable ways, if you lived on Nix ,for example, the sun would come up in different parts of the sky on different days. After a 9.5-year journey through the solar system, NASA’s $700 million New Horizon spacecraft will arrive at the Pluto system in July. The New Horizon is expected to take extremely high resolution images of Pluto and its moons, and astronomers hope to better understand how big Pluto system is and what it is made of.

Jacobs J. et al. Direct recordings of grid-like neuronal activity in human spatial navigation. Nature Neuroscience, 2013

Do you happen to have a poor sense of direction? Do you often find yourself holding a map upside-down? Well, now you can blame your grid cells. Using direct human brain recordings, researchers have identified a novel type of cell in the brain that helps people keep track of their relative location while navigating through an unfamiliar environment. Scientists got this rare opportunity to identify these unique cells while they studied brain recordings of epilepsy patients via electrodes implanted deep inside their brains. These cells have been called “grid cells” because they are activated in a triangular grid pattern. The “grid cell” is distinct among brain cells because its activation represents multiple spatial locations, which allows the brain to keep track of navigational cues, such as how far you are from a starting point or your last turn. This type of navigation is called path integration. During brain recordings, 14 study participants were asked to play a video game where they ride a virtual bicycle to navigate from one point to another to retrieve objects and then recall how to get back to the places where they found the objects. While participants were playing the game, researchers examined the relation between navigation and the corresponding activity of individual neurons. Results were striking: each grid cell responded at multiple spatial locations that were arranged in the shape of a grid suggesting that the navigation information is principally encoded in our brains through this triangular grid pattern. Without grid cells, humans would frequently get lost or have to navigate based solely on landmarks. Differences in how well the grid cells work could potentially explain why some people have a better sense of direction than others. In addition, grid cells are located in the entorhinal cortex which is a critical component of human memory. The entorhinal cortex is also the first brain region affected in Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, understanding how grid cells work could potentially help us to understand why people with Alzheimer’s frequently become disoriented as well as to develop new strategies to improve brain function in the affected individuals.

Giant viruses open Pandora’s box

Philippe N. et al. Pandoraviruses: amoeba viruses with genomes up to 2.5 Mb reaching that of parasitic eukaryotes. Science, 2013 Jul 19

On a fairly ordinary day, two French biologists were analyzing water samples collected off the coast of Chile. What they saw under the microscope was quite amazing: a previously unidentified organism, about the size of a bacterial cell, appeared as a large dark spot. Astonishingly, these new organisms seemed to be infecting and killing the amoeba in the water. Later, another group of researchers found a similar organism in a pond in Australia. Both groups soon realized that they discovered a type of “giant” virus which is at least twice as big as the largest known viruses. The biggest virus discovered so far was called Mimiviruses, with a size of 700 nanometers and carrying more than 1000 genes. The newly discovered viruses are called Pandoraviruses, which are 1 micrometer long and 0.5 micrometers across. Pandoraviruses are visible under a light microscope and contain more than 2500 genes. A viral genome consisting of 2500 genes is extremely large compared to known viruses, such as the Influenza or HIV, which only contain 10 genes or less. More importantly, 93% of the genes did not resemble any known lineage in the natural world, suggesting Pandoraviruses are not related to any known virus family and may represent a new life form. These findings generated new perspectives about how scientists see viruses. It raised the possibility that there might be many different kinds of giant viruses out there to be discovered. Some biological features in these giant viruses could easily blur the line between life forms and viruses, which are considered to be non-living. Although Pandoraviruses do not infect human cells, there might be other giant viruses out there that could infect human cells. There are still a lot of human diseases known to have an infectious component but for which no infectious agent has been identified yet. This study will definitely encourage people to actively look for the role of giant viruses in some diseases.

See through the Ears

Haigh A. et al. How well do you see what you hear? The acuity of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013 Jun 18

Scientists have created a revolutionary device for the blind that allows them see the world through their ears. The device “vOICe” trains the brain to invoke mental images of what they are hearing around them. The first test trial of vOICe has been performed on blindfolded sighted people. The participants took a standard eye test where they were asked to view the letter E turned in four directions and in various sizes. The best visual acuity is considered 20/20 (distance in feet/size of the E) and the majority of participants were able to achieve the best performance possible, nearly 20/400 sight. This is an impressive result when compared to an alternative stem-cell based sight restoration technique, which only yielded 20/800 visual acuity. In addition, the affordable and non-invasive nature of vOICe would offer a unique option. But, how might this work in practice? One can imagine that visually-impaired people would wear a discreet head-mounted camera such as Google Glass and receive wireless audio information through mini earbuds. As the person turns to look in various directions, the device scans images and correlates those with soundscapes, then the person’s brain would momentarily translate those into mental images of the objects — like braille for the ears. These sensory substitution devices could potentially be employed in combination with other alternative invasive techniques to train the brain to see again, or even to see for the first time.

Original article: Kim P. et al, ACS Nano (2012, online ahead of print)

Frost formation on aircrafts at high altitudes poses major safety threats and high-maintenance costs. Now, Joanna Aizenberg with her research team present a solution in their recent publication reporting on outstanding capabilities of a surface coating to prevent frost formation on metal surfaces. The technology called SLIPS (Slippery, Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces) was inspired by the slippery surface of the carnivorous pitcher plant, which enables the plant to capture insects. “Some of the most extreme examples in biology can provide the most amazing and unexpected ideas…” says Aizenberg, who is a professor at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University. Rendering surfaces slippery is not new to scientists, and the earlier inspirations also came from biology. Mimicking the surface of the leaf of another plant (Nelumbo nucifera, or commonly known as the Lotus plant), scientists have been successful in fabricating surface coatings that would repel water-based dirt, but Lotus-inspired coatings failed for oily substances. On the other hand, Aizenberg’s SLIPS technology offers a single solution for repelling any type of accumulated unwanted material. The pitcher plant thus offers a solution that virtually proves to be the “silver bullet” in generating non-sticky coatings as described again in Aizenberg’s own words: “In following its example, we should be able to develop a platform that works for almost any sticky problem, no matter how seemingly unrelated, whether it’s ice accumulation, bacterial attachment, environmental contamination, clogging of pipes, marine biofouling, or graffiti, rather than having to come up with a host of individual solutions.” Thanks to the wondrous design in the pitcher plant, it looks like doctors will be delivered from replacing bacteria-contaminated arterial stents, and we can all give a kiss goodbye to frosty freezers.

2- Airborne bird flu virus possesses a great risk

Original articles: Herfst S. et al, Science 336, 1534 & Russell C.A. et al, Science 336, 1541.

Science magazine recently published a special issue (June 22, 2012 issue) on the H5N1 infection (a.k.a. bird flu) with two reports revealing the pandemic (a disease prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world, such as AIDS) potential of bird flu. Bird flu virus has so far killed millions of birds and many more millions of birds were culled to stop the propagation of the virus. Thankfully, this virus has not yet caused a pandemic in humans mainly because of its inability to spread easily among humans. One mechanism that makes viruses highly contagious is their ability to spread through air, such as through the nose and mouths of people when they cough and sneeze. Viruses that spread through air are called airborne viruses. One big difference between bird flu virus and the more recent swine flu virus (H1N1) was that swine flu is an airborne virus and bird flu is not, and therefore swine flu caused a mild pandemic in 2009. As reported in these studies, researchers identified several genetic mutations that will cause bird flu virus to become airborne. Viruses undergo mutations all the time and unfortunately some of these identified mutations have already started taking place in circulating virus strains. This poses a great risk. One important aspect of these reports is that they were written about a year ago but withheld since now, because of concerns about misuse of this information to pose a threat to humanity. Now that the information is public, our hope is that it will be used to monitor the virus closely and be prepared if bird flu virus transforms into an airborne virus.

3- Not all bacteria are the same after all

Original article: Chung H. et al, Cell 149, 1578 (2012)

The impact of our own bacteria on human life has been intensely researched in recent years. One of the common ground is that humans acquire many useful bacteria over their existence. However, this microbial flora constantly changes as the conditions do. Therefore, the real number of 500 to 1000 microbial species inhabiting mammals is anybody’s guess. Nonetheless, some scientists did not shy away predicting a connection between having a specific microbial flora to avoid certain diseases. A recent article by Chung et al presented an interesting clue why constant change in microbial flora, especially if that leads to a loss of important bacteria, may be linked to the increase in human autoimmune disorders. “For every cell in your body that is you, that contains your specific genetic information, there are approximately nine foreign bacterial cells, primarily in your digestive tract and even on your skin,” said Dennis Kasper, professor at Harvard Medical School and senior author on the paper. To address the question if microbial affects immune system development, authors compared two groups of mice, both of which had never had bacteria in their intestine before the experiment. One group of mice received mice microbial flora and the other received human microbial flora. Both groups had similar number of bacteria in their digestive tracks. However, authors observed a stark contrast between the two groups in terms of the level of immune cells in intestinal tissues. Mice that received human flora had surprisingly low number of immune cells compared to the mice that received mouse flora, which is native to mice. When this experiment was repeated with rat microbial flora, astonishingly, similar immune deficiency was observed. “I was very surprised to see that. I would have expected more of a half-way response,” Chung said, considering how closely rats and mice are related. The study points out that we really need to preserve our own microbial flora that has been tailored for us. Disrupting this balance by means of current antibiotics overuse may have detrimental effects in the future.

But sometimes messages can lead to malicious results. Some carry viruses, defined as unwanted and sometimes harmful computer codes. Others are hijacked and spill their secrets without a fight, or seem to come from friends who “decided” to send you false news.

Given today’s reliance on e-mail, any security gap is a problem. Fortunately, such gaps are filled easily and can keep important e-mail safe and secret.

Is E-mail Privacy an Illusion?

The most common fear is prying eyes. Just as standard mail may not be private, e-mail is not entirely private, for it is easy to intercept e-mail messages. However, the risk of this occurring is often overstated.

Surveys show that many employers occasionally read employees’ e-mail. If the messages are on company-owned computers, such “snooping” is legal. If you send and receive e-mail on your own computer, you will face a similar problem: hackers. You cannot ignore the small chance of nosy hackers at servers along the way. Even worse, it is easy to make e-mail look like it came from someone else.

How can your e-mail privacy be protected? Fortunately, suitable tools are available. One is encryption, which prevents any message modification or disclosure. Digital signatures can be used for authentication purposes. While these may seem to aggravate the problem, they are proper steps to take if you are concerned about your e-mail’s privacy. Reliably identifying the message’s sender is even mentioned in the Holy Books, as in: O believers. If a wicked person comes to you with news, ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly and afterwards become full of repentance for what you have done (Qur’an 49:6).

Many other solutions, most of them free, also are available. For example Microsoft’s Outlook, the leading e-mail program, includes several built-in security features to protect your sent e-mail. Outlook can “digitally sign” messages with a special code to show that the message is from you, and also verify the sender’s signature. Second, you can encrypt messages and attachments to ensure privacy.

To sign or encrypt messages with such e-mail programs as Outlook, you need a digital ID (also known as a certificate or key). Digital IDs consist of a public key and private key. The private key is stored on your machine and is never sent to anyone. You can e-mail the public key to correspondents, or they can access it from a central server. When you send a signed message, your private key generates a code that only your public key can decode. Thus your public key verifies that you sent the message with your private key. When you send an encrypted message, you use their public key to encrypt it so that only their private key can decrypt it. If you follow this procedure, only the recipient with the correct private key will be able to read the message.

Digital IDs are available from such third-party companies as VeriSign. Once an ID has been imported, you can use the features on the Security tab in your e-mail program’s Options dialog box to establish a standard security procedure. Alternatively, individual users can download a free program based on the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) standard for noncommercial use. PGP integrates itself with several e-mail programs and allows users to generate an ID for signing and encrypting e-mail or files. PGP also works with Web-based e-mail systems by allowing you to select text in any program and then sign or encrypt it.

Encryption keep messages secret. Even people sending e-mail at work can count on a PGP-type system to keep unwanted readers locked out, as long as both sender and recipient encrypt.

Things to Remember

Keep Passwords Secret: Web-based e-mail, such as Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, presents another security concern: Subscribers can use any computer to check their messages. User IDs and passwords protect unauthorized access. But going somewhere without logging off lets someone else read your e-mail and send e-mail under your name. To avoid this, Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail automatically clear sensitive information from the browser’s cache when you log off. In addition, after you log off someone else cannot log on by clicking the back button.

Another strategy is to choose an unusual password and keep it secret. A simple e-mail password is easy to remember-and easy to crack. Many password cracking applications are online, and most use a dictionary of common words to search for your password. Your best bet is to use an alphanumeric password.

E-mail Viruses: New viruses, some of them quite harmful, pop up almost daily. One of the fastest ways to spread them is via e-mail. Recent examples are the Melissa and the so-called “I love you” viruses, which could copy and mail themselves to the first 50 people in your Outlook address book. To avoid this, learn the basic limitations of viruses. Receiving, opening, or reading an e-mail message will not infect your system. Viruses are not that wily yet, so you can open the messages. However, be careful about any attachments. Attachments are usually displayed as file icons at the message’s bottom or perhaps as hyperlinks that you need to download. Opening an attachment can allow a virus to escape and infect your system.

Some attached files are more virus-friendly than others. Watch out for files with .exe .com, and .bat extensions, for they can contain viruses. The fastest growing category of viruses today ride Microsoft Office Document (.doc) files as macros, executable files that record common keyboard and mouse actions to a single key with word processing, spreadsheet, and other documents.

One way to protect your computer is not to open attachments from strangers. A better and easier solution is to get an antivirus program that scans attachments before they can run. Such programs can hunt continuously in the background for macro viruses, as well as for the more traditional executable foes. Such virus-fighter sites as McAfee or Symantec allow you download a free demonstration version of their leading programs. Virus checkers cannot keep up with new viruses, so it is still smart not to open attachments from unidentified sources. Beware of an attachment that appears out of nowhere, even if you have loaded a virus program.

Misleading Links: Another threat is hyperlinks to odd Web sites. Many e-mail programs allow users to send Web links within a message so that recipients can click and begin loading the page in their browser. However, Web pages can contain scripts (a sequence of executable commands) designed to weasel through the browser’s security measures and infect your computer with virus-like programs. This is more a matter of browser security than e-mail security. Although you probably will not encounter a Web page sophisticated enough to take advantage of browser security problems, you should be prepared by ensuring that your browser’s security options are set appropriately. Also, keep your browser current.

You ‘ve Got E-mail: Although most security problems could strike anyone, most of us do not need to turn e-mail habits into something out of a spy novel. Just be aware of the possibilities and take a few steps to see that your e-mail is protected.

Try not to create e-mail security holes. Almost everyone sometimes sends an e-mail message to a wrong address. When addresses are no more than initials, numbers, and meaningless gib berish, this is easy. Often the results are slightly embarrassing-sometimes almost catastrophic.

Consider the case of the Illinois man who left Chicago’s snow-filled streets for a Florida vacation. His wife was on a business trip, and was planning to meet him there the next day. He sent her a quick e-mail upon reaching the hotel. Unfortunately, he missed one letter and his note reached the elderly wife of a preacher who had died the day before. When she checked her e-mail, she took one look at the monitor, screamed, and fainted. Her family rushed in and saw this note on the screen:

To My Dear Wife:

Just got checked in. Everything prepared for your arrival tomorrow.

Your Loving Husband

PS. Sure is hot down here.

References 

• http://email.about.com/internet/email/.
• www.emailtoday.com.
• www.lv.psu.edu/ojj/collectn/humor/dead-email.html.
• www.macafee.com.
• www.messagingonline.com/mt/html/feature031400.html.
• www.pgp.com/.
• www.publicdoman.com/email.html.
• www.smartcomputing.com/email.asp?emid-11018.
• www.symantec.com.
• www. timrichardson.net/misc/security.html.
• www.verisign.com/client/index.html. 

In the context of biology, evolution claims that life developed by chance out of inorganic material, and then acquired more and more complexity and sufficient variety to fill the Earth with the different existing species today. In this context, evolution has some subdivisions. First, according to where it takes place, it is divided into microevolution or “variations” (both within a species), and macroevolution (between species). Second, scientific progress has caused evolution itself to evolve into such different versions as classical Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium. As our space is limited, we will concentrate on the very basics of evolution, and leave some of the alternatives aside. Also, we will not cover many of the oppositions and objections in minor evolutionary issues or detail.

Slick writes: “The driving forces behind evolution are considered to be random genetic transformations (mutations) and natural selection. Mutations provide genetic variation and natural selection (predation, environmental conditions, etc.)” (Slick 1998). Thus, beneficial genetic combinations are sorted from non-beneficial ones and carried from generation to generation. In other words, the organism that survives natural selection [process] passes the new (improved) genetic information to future generations, who continue to pass them down with every new generation.2 At first, all of this might seem self-consistent and even logical. But an inquisitive mind should not accept anything on the basis of apparent “logic” without exploring, because observation without extensive searching can be quite misleading. (See the example of a recent discovery about dinosaurs.)

In his The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin described the basics of his theory and sought to substantiate it by fossil findings. More specifically, he based his theory on intermediate links between species (ancestors to descendants). Even though this is his strongest evidence (!), in the same book he asks: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”3 (Darwin, 1859, chapter 9). He himself agrees that the strongest evidence of evolution assuredly does not exist, and foresaw that the fossil record will be a thread against evolution in future.

The above argument might raise the question:

“Well, in the 1850s geology was not that developed, so now we might have some geological evidence about intermediate links.” Yes, geology has developed a lot since then, but it has provided no strong evidence for such a link. For example, we are all familiar with the term “missing link,” because after 250 years of exploration such “links” are still “missing.” Not only is humanity’s ancestral line formed of missing links, but so are the ancestral lines of such other living things as animals, birds, fish, and plants.4

As Jepsen L.Glenn states: “Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many ‘links will continue to be missing”5 (Jepsen, 1963, p.114). And he was right because they are still missing. “The missing links between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated… Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…”6 (Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980, p. 95).

Due to such difficulties, which have been around since Darwin’s time, evolutionists have transformed the theory into Neo-Darwinism and other versions (see above). This means that the quest for truth in this matter has not been settled. On the other hand, due to insufficiency of historical data, sources, and methods to reproduce the beginning of life, some scientists classify the origin of life as either unknowable or unanswerable7 and hence as best left to belief or logic. Even though the process of life and its adventure is not reproducible, science is increasing the hfstorical data about the origin of life and the history of living things. But surprisingly, the new data do not support evolution.

As for observation (together with historical findings), we still have to search beyond our eyes and imagination. For instance, museums, textbooks, scientific magazines, and movies traditionally portray dinosaurs as standing up 12 meters high or more, because dinosaur fossils had very long necks. This was enough for scientists to deduce that they were tall, ate tree leaves, and fought with other creatures standing upright. But a recent study at Northern Illinois University, showed that the joint structure in their necks allowed them to lift their head at most 2 to 3 meters.8 Therefore, seeing is not enough for sound deduction, and drawing pictures, assembling bones, and one’s imagination does not necessarily produce sound logic.

Alterations to the theory of evolution over the last 250 years imply that as science progresses, it does not support the theory but rather changes or at least modifies it. As mentioned earlier, due to the lack of evolutionary links between species, the theory adopted “punctuated equilibrium.” which states that “evolution took huge sudden jumps … in 100,000- or 300,000-year increments or so, during different periods of earth history.”9 Thus there can be no gradual improvement. This is not a mere modification of the theory, but a total digression from Darwin’s original version. When scientists discovered huge gaps between species, they were so predisposed to evolution that they changed its basic theoretical premises and still called it “evolution.” Unfortunately, the public is usually unaware of such advances or modifications, and continues to believe that the theory of evolution is “scientific.”

As regards supposed “missing links,” we give the most argumentative evolutionary record, the alleged evolutionary record of man, as an example:

1. -Ramapithecus – 10 to 14 million years ago.

2. -Australopithecus-1 to 4 million years ago.

A. -Afarensis – 3 to 3.6 million years ago.

B. -Africanus-2.5 to 3 million years ago.

C. -Robustus-3 to 1.8 million years ago

D. -Boisei-1.8 million years ago.

3. -Zinjanthropus (also known as East Africa Man) -1.5 to 2 million years ago.

4. -Homo Habilis-2 million years ago.

5. -Pithecanthropus-500.000 years ago.

A. -Nebraska Man (also known as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii).

B. -Piltdown Man (also known as Eanthropus dawsoni, or Dawn Man).

6. -Homo Erectus-300,000 years ago (also known as Java Man and as Peking Man or Sinjanthropus pekinensis)

7. -Sapiens

A. -Neanderthal-30,000 to 75,000 years ago.

B. -Cromagnon-10,000 to 50,000 years ago.

C. -Modern-10,000 years ago.

D. -Homo Sapiens-present.

These dates were taken from the November 1985 issue of The Notional Geographic magazine.10 Now, let’s see what really constitutes these links one by one:

Ramapithecus: Ramapithecus, which consists of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, is considered to be a hominid (human evolutionary ancestor) solely on the basis of its dental record.11 David Pilbeam, one of the first to state that Ramapethicus was a hominid, says that he now is not so sure that it is a human ancestor, and that he has found new fossils of the species that invalidate earlier conclusions.12

Australopithecus: Found by Dart in 1924, Australopithecus Africanus, consists of a skull, a jaw, some teeth, and pelvis, limb, and footfragments. This creature is divided into two main species: Australopithecus Africanus and Australopithecus Robustus. Australopithecus is not considered a human ancestor.13

Zinjanthropus: In 1950, Louis and Mary Leakey found 400 pieces of a skull in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. They claimed that this hominid ancestor was 1,750,000 years old. This age was determined on their dating of the rocks in which the bones were located by the potassium argon method. In 1960, they found a child’s skull of a more advanced type 12 inches deeper in the rock. This led Leakey to say that Zinjanthropus was not hominid, but rather entirely ape. Carbon 14 dating of mammal bones in the same stratum suggests an age of only 10,000 years or 3,100 years.

Nebraska Man: In 1922, a geologist named Cook found a tooth in Nebraska’s Snake Creek bed. Professor Osborn (The New York Museum) and Sir Smith C. Aubrey of London said it belonged to an ape man. It was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.14

Piltdown Man: In 1912, Charles Dawson and others found a skullcap, jawbone, and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these, they constructed an ape man, named him Piltdown (or Dawn) Man, and dated him at 500,000 years BC. In 1953, British scientists discovered that the jawbone belonged to a monkey that had been stained to indicate age, that the teeth had been filed to make them look human, and that the skullcap was really an elephant’s kneecap. The hoax fooled experts for many years.15

Java Man: In 1892 in Java (now part of Indonesia), Dubois found a skullcap, teeth, and femur bone about 60 feet from each other. He said these belonged to the same hominid ancestor, and that it was about 500,000 years old. He failed to mention that he had found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial. In 1908, the German Selenka expedition found that lava flows in Java made an age of more than 500 years impossible. In 1936, Dubois admitted that Java Man was an ape.16

Peking Man: Between 1922 and 1939, the bones of 38 individuals were discovered at Choukoutien, southwest of Peking. Experts in several countries said these belonged to ape men. Mr. O’Connell, a missionary in China, claimed this was a lime pit and that local men and women killed monkeys and then ate their brains. When the hill collapsed, people were buried and fossilized. The mixture of bones was used to create an ape man. The original specimens were lost in WWII. O’Connell says Peking man is altogether human.

Neanderthal Man: The first bones of Neanderthal Man, found in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856, indicated a stooped posture. He was said to be one step above apes, and was dated at 200,000 years. Later, he was found to have arthritis. Since then, skeletons in an upright position have been found in caves in Palestine. Their brain size is larger than that of modern man.

Cromagnon: Cromagnon bones of have been found in caves in France. Although they are dated at 50,000 years,their brain size is larger than that of modern man.17,18

As seen above, these so-called human ancestors are either apes or based solely on teeth, or they are just human beings with larger brains and bigger bodies, which might mean more complexity. So what makes the above table of links scientific? I think only the make-up is scientific: fancy Latin names, estimated millions of years by some questionable method, and publication in a scientific journal. It is this presentation that makes people view this as not make-believe but rather a sophisticated track record of human ancestors. If the Carbon 14 method is reliable (it is questionable), we should accept that man’s real ancestors are Neanderthals and Cromagnons, who were still men and appeared around 30,000 to 75,000 years ago with no hominid (human ancestor) predecessors. Thus they emerged immediately, and hence were created in this excellent form. As for other species: “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.”19 (New Scientist, No. 1295, p. 581).

Let’s return to the basics of evolution-did life appear on Earth out of inorganic material spontaneously and by chance? Scientific evidence suggests the formation was spontaneous, but not by chance. The formation of life out of inorganic material by chance would require an enormous amount of time and combinations of molecules. Even if we assume that all these combinations existed on Earth, is it possible that life can emerge by chance? Is it mathematically probable?

Let’s give some probabilistic results in exponential notation for the sake of simplicity. For those who are not familiar with such notation, here is a brief description. 42 is 4×4, or 16 where 2 is the exponent and 4 is the base. Likewise 53 equals to 5x5x5 or 125. When the exponent is negative, like 3-3 it means 1 divided by 3x3x3 or 1/27th. Now for a quick illustration of why we use exponents: consider that we take 250 pieces of paper each 1/10 mm thick and put them in stack. How high will the stack be? The answer is 250 x 1/10 mm, which seems quite perceivable and not so large (due to the simplicity of the notation). However, the result is approximately 1.1258×1014 mm or 112,589,990.7km, which is 17,652.87 equatorial radii of the Earth. Of course, the first notation’s simplicity is due to the exponential 250, which is in fact 1,124,899,906,842,624. As another example, consider the estimated approximate number of the atoms in the universe, which is 1079 atoms. This is a one with 79 zeroes after it. Now the exponents in quotes and example below will be more familiar.

“To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving a maximum combined probability of 10-2000 ” 20 (Denten, 1985).

“The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected” 21 (Quastler, 1964, p. 7).

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer”22 (Dawkins, p. 130).

There are hundreds of such quotes from well-known scientists and experts on this subject.

Thus, the probability of life coming from inorganic material by chance is virtually zero. Hence evolutionists had to devise another idea from probability theory. The principle follows as: “Given an infinite amount of time, the probability of something happening, no matter how remote the probability is 1.” 23

But does this idea save evolution? Before putting this idea on test, let’s present the estimates of Earth’s24 and the universe’s25 age.

Note that the highest age estimate for the Earth is 4.6 billion, and that the highest estimate for the universe’s age is 18 billion years. Thus, as the universe existed for a limited amount of time, the basic premise of the evolutionists using probability theory is refuted. What is the probability of a 100-part organism (no living cell has this few) forming if for 30 billion years, a generous estimate of the universe’s age, there were 1 billion billion billion billion combinations of its parts every second (1036 combinations per second). In other words, is that enough time? Here we take an artificial cell of 100 parts (since any living cell has more than 100 parts, this is a very low estimate),overestimate of the universe’s age (to silence opponents), and overestimate the number of events per second beyond what really is possible.

Living cells are composed of DNA. The simplest life forms on Earth are viruses, which consist of thousands of parts. Let our artificial organism be a 100-part virus. If we suppose that these parts can only lie on a straight line, the total number of all possible orderings is 100! (100! means 100 factorial, or 100x99x98x ……x4x3x2xl). This straight line assumption favors evolution, since there may be many other ways on which DNA-parts may lie. To illustrate further: if we have two sticks, how many ways can we arrange them? 2! = 2×1 or 2 different ways; if we have 3 sticks? 3! = 3x2x1, or 6 different ways, Had we 5 sticks?, 5!=120 different waysand so on. Note that as the number of sticks increases, the number of possible arrangements increases dramatically. As the virus can have DNA-parts in many forms other than a straight line, the total number of possible arrangements of DNA-parts is more than 100!. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that it is 100!. Then 100 parts can combine in 100!=9.32258232×10157 different possible ways. Hence the probability of our virus to form in its particular order is approximately one in 10157.

The next question addressed is: Is 30 billion (3×1010) years enough for this very simple virus to form? The possible number of combinations per second is 1036 , and 30 billion years is equal to 3×1036 (years)x365(days)x24(hours)x60(minutes)x60(seconds), or 9.4608×1037 seconds. Now to find the total number of combinations for all life in the universe, we multiply 1036 combinations per second with 9.4608×1037 seconds, for a result of 9.4608×1073 combinations. Hence only a tiny fraction of all possible formations could have occurred, and the probability of our virus to form from the beginning of the universe till now is 9.4608×1073 over 9.32258232×10157, which is approximately one in 1083 combinations (virtually zero). (This example is a slight modification of the one given by Matthew J. Slick of CARM.26)

Some evolutionists claim that since life exists on Earth, this minute probability actually occurred. But here they are completely losing track of objectivity, a necessity in science. When they presume that evolution is a fact, they do not allow contrary evidence to influence them. Their obstinacy prevents them from seeing that this case is not like a lottery, in which all the possible number of combinations are sold, so that a winner will be for sure (here winner is analogous to our virus). Keep in mind that only 0.000….% (there are 81 zeroes after the decimal) of all combinations could be covered until now. Therefore, the probability of living cells forming by chance is very close to zero, and the universe’s presumed age is not sufficient for even the formation of a 100-part virus. If we look at cells with hundreds of parts, which would be more realistic, the odds against their forming are multiplied exponentially. Yet evolutionists maintain that the spontaneous formation of life on the Earth is a fact. Hence it is created spontaneously by a Supreme Being.

The third basis of evolution is the continued formation of genetic material, which is credited to mutations and the selection of favorable genetic formation by nature (natural selection). But the primary problem with mutation is that it is almost always destructive (one should draw a clear line between genetic engineering and arbitrary alteration of the genetic code, the latter is called mutation). Since a favorable genetic code is needed for natural selection, mutations should occur a priori. In other words, mutations should be responsible for genetic variety, not natural selection, which operates only on existing genes (it cannot create new genes). Mutations occur randomly and should transform the existing gene into a new gene possesing an advantage. But many evolutionists continue to assert that natural selection drives the genetic transition. This implies that genes should perform their newly evolved functions before they evolve into new genes. This is like claimimg that birds can fly when they are still in their eggs. Therefore, random chance and not natural selection is responsible for evolution of new genes. Hence, until a new gene offers a competitive advantage, natural selection cannot occur.27

Now a careful reader might recall that the probability of a 100-part virus (a virus whose genetic code consists of 100 DNA-units) was I in 10157, and given l036 possible combinations per second the probability of this virus to form since the beginning of the universe (assumed to be approximately 9.4608×1037 seconds) was 1 in 1083 combinations. Here there is no need to find the probability of a 100-part virus evolving into a 1,000-part bacterium (the simplest bacterium consists of millions of DNA-parts), since the probability of a virus forming from inorganic material was virtually zero. But for curious readers, here is a very simplistic approach: There are two extremes in this problem: 1) an additional 900 parts form and combine with the previous 100 parts, and 2) every part of the 100 existing parts evolves into 10 new parts. Every other possibility of 100 existing parts evolving into 1,000 new parts falls somewhere between these two cases.

Case l: 900 parts can combine in 900!=6.75×102270 different possible ways. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that these 900 parts will just join the previous 100 parts at one edge of the existing DNA. Hence the odds of combining 900 parts with the previous 100 parts to form a specific 1000-part straight-line formation is 1 in 6.75×102270 combinations. With 1036 possible combinations per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, even if a 100-part virus existed at the beginning of the universe, the probability of the forming a 1,000-part bacteria from that virus is 9.4608×1053 /900!=l.4×10-2216.

Case 2: The probability of 10 parts evolving from each one of 100-existing parts. The likelihood of forming a new one part from an existing part is (either it forms or not). Hence the probability of 10 new parts evolving from one old part is (1/2)=10 = 2-10 =1/1024. There are 100 such events; hence, the probability is (2-10)100 =9.33×10-302. Given 1036 events per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, the probability of forming a 1,000- part virus out of a 100-part virus is (9.4068×1053) /(21000 )=8.83×10-248.

Now keep in mind that a virus has thousands of parts, and that a bacteria has millions of parts. Also, consider the evolution of multicelled organisms from unicellular organisms, plants from multicelled organisms, animals from plants, and men from animals. There are quadrillions of parts to be evolved at each step, and the above probability should be multiplied exponentially in the denominator. In sum, there is no way evolution can happen by chance.

As seen above, whatever is claimed to support evolution turns out to not support it. Now recall that for natural selection to occur, favorably evolved genes should exist and each gene’s evolutions should be cumulative. As we have proven that the large-scale change of genetic material is impossible, can natural selection drive cumulative small-scale changes in genes? The study shows that by preserving the functionality of existing genes, natural selection fights evolution, for existing genes are not free to evolve into new genes. The genes are locked by natural selection, that is, if a gene evolves into a new gene the original gene is lost. Now, if the original gene benefits the organism, its loss will be a competitive disadvantage to the organism (hence the organism will be eliminated or disfavored by natural selection). If the gene is non-beneficial, it would be eliminated by natural selection. Therefore natural selection locks existing genes into their place. Theoretically, genes might transform at the expense of losing their previous functionality, but this transformation is not cumulative. The only opposition might arise in the case of the new gene being more beneficiary than the previous one. This is slightly misleading, for if the new gene offers more benefit on the same characteristic, then no variation is possible even within a species (which is not the case on Earth). If the new gene offers a beneficial new characteristic, the original characteristic is lost and hence a disadvantage occurs. This is not much of a benefit.

This discrepancy in evolution was first observed by a scientist named Ohno (1978), who says: “Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible, for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously non-existent functions. Only the cistron (a segment of DNA that is equivalent to a gene and that specifies a single functional unit as a protein or enzyme) which became redundant was able to escape from the relentless pressure of natural selection, and by escaping, it accumulated formerly forbidden mutations to emerge as a new gene locus.”

As Ohno said, even if a virus or a bacteria existed in the beginning, only these and their variations would be alive today. Also, those redundant gene loci are the only genes that can escape from natural selection, and all mutations must occur on them. However, only a new trait can result from this mutation. Then this locus is again under the lock of natural selection, since it gained a new functionality. Furthermore, it does not allow the creation of new genes to acquire the complexity of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals. Hence “as long as a particular function of an organism is under the control of a single gene locus, natural selection does not permit perpetuation of mutations which result in affecting the functionally critical site of a peptide chain specified by that locus. Hence, allelic mutations are incapable of changing the assigned function of genes”28 (Ohno,1978). This observation is quite important, because evolution needs numerous, successive small changes of existing genes-the above observation proves that changes at a gene locus are not cumulative.29

Why then is Darwinism so prevalent in the scientific world? Why is it still taught in schools and shown in documentary films as a fact? Are the evolutionists unable to see the discrepancies and improbability of evolution? The answer to these questions lie mostly in the fact that the primary motivation for advancing Darwinism was philosophical, not scientific.30 The underlying philosophy behind Darwinism is naturalism, whose roots are in classical Greek philosophy. Darwin knew little about genetics, but the spread of Darwinism was the result of combination of Darwinism with genetics in 1930s and 1940s. This combination is a result of the prevalence of naturalism among philosophers and scientists in recent centuries. Therefore, there is a close relationship between Darwinism and naturalism-indeed, Darwinism became the branch of naturalism in biology. Therefore, in a future article we will examine the source(naturalism) that Darwinism nourishes and elaborate on the aspects of Darwinism that we did not cover or about which we just gave tangent remarks.

FOOTNOTES

1. Merriam-Webster, Inc, ‘WWebster Dictionary (1999) at http://www.m-w.com.
2. Matthew J. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
3. http://hjein.get2net.dk/Paleontology, online books, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 11: “On the imperfection of the geologic record” (1859).
4. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
5. L. Glenn Jepsen, Ernst Mayr, and George Gaylord Simpson, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (New York: Athenaeum, 1963), 114.
6. “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek [Nov. 3, 1980), 95.
7. Selim Uzunoglu, Upon the Unknown and the Unknowable (1998).
8. Zaman / America, International Newspaper (May 3, 1999).
9. Slick (1998) at http://www.cann.org/evfactor.htm.
10. The National Geographic, vol. 168, no. 5 (Nov. 1985), 568-73.
11. E. L. Simons, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 167 (1969), 319; E. L. Simons, ScientificAmerican, vol. 211 (1964), 50; D. R. Pilbeam, Nature, vol. 219 (1968), 1335; E. L. Simons and D. R. Pilbeam, Science, vol. 173 (1971), 23.
12. New York Times (February 18, 1979), 41.
13. C. Oxnard, University of Chicago Magazine (Winter 1974), 11-22 A. Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers, 1957), 51-52.
14. S. K. Gregory, Science, vol. 66, p. 579 (1927) as cited in Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No (San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1981), 130.
15. 5. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), 75-94 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 132.
16. W. Howell, Mankind in the Making (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday and Co., 1967), 155-56 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 125.
17. For further information on evolution, consult Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, Santee, CA 1984); Gish, Evolution; Marshall Hall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?: The Craig Press, 1974); and A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1975), 55438.
18. The reference numbers 10-17 can be tracked at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
19. Tom Kemp, “The Reptiles That Became Mammals,” New Scientist, vol. 93, no. 1295, (March 4, 1982), 581.
20. Michael Denten, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Warwickshire, UK, Burnett Books Limited, 1985).
21. Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT, and London, UK: Yale University Press, 1964), 7.
22. Richard Dawkins, “The Necessiiv of Dazwinism,” New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), 130.
23. http://www.gogoscience.com/forums/messages/6267.shtml.
24. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/mutation.htm.
25. http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/research/age.html (Optical astronomy group at Leeds, UK).
26. Slick (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm
27. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.darwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
28. Ohno, Susumu Evolution by Gene Duplication (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978). HYPERLINK
29. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.daiwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
30. William A. Dembski et al., Mere Creation, Science, Faith and Intelligent Design (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998).),p.74

So-called ‘new’ viruses most probably derive from existing viruses; in general, viruses of today have ancestors and relatives. However, as viruses show great variety, and many of the viruses of gravest concern mutate rapidly and unpredictably, it is not always possible to trace their ancestry with any great confidence. A ‘new virus may be genuinely new or a major evolutionary variant arising from genetic processes such as mutation or recombination. Their rate of mutation is so high that controlling them, or predicting their behaviour, is well-nigh impossible. High mutation rate means that no RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus population is a single entity, but rather a ‘quasi species’. Introduction of a virus from one species to another and dissemination from a smaller to a larger population are also among the basic mechanisms by which viruses emerge.

The emerging viruses are surfacing from ecologically damaged parts of the earth. When viruses come out of an ecosystem, they tend to spread in waves through the human population. Among the most notorious are: Lassa, Rift Valley, Oropuche, Rocio, Q. Guanarito, VEE, Monkeypox, Dengue, Chikunganya, the Hanta viruses, Machupo, Junin, the rabies like strains Mokola and Duvenhage, LeDantec.

AIDS: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a more difficult case compared to, for example, influenza, itself a great killer – the influenza pandemic of 1918-9 in China caused some 20 million fatalities. We do not know the origin of HIV, but a probable primate origin is often suggested, and appears highly plausible. HIV-2 (one of the major strains of HIV) may be a mutant that jumped into humans from an African monkey known as the sooty mangabey, perhaps when monkey hunters or trappers touched body tissue. HIV-1 (the other strain) may have jumped into man from chimpanzees – perhaps when hunters butchered chimpanzees.

HIV attacks the type of lymphocytes known as helper T-cells that stimulate the activity of B lymphocytes that produce antibodies. After an HIV infection sets in, helper T-cells begin to decline in number and the person becomes more susceptible to infections.

The AIDS virus mutates rapidly and constantly. It is a hyper-mutant, a shape-shifter, spontaneously altering its character as it moves through individuals. It mutates even in the course of one injection.

The drug AZT has been found to be helpful in prolonging the lives of AIDS patients. Also, it has been shown that administration of Interleukin-2 and AT-538 can prevent viral replication in cells in the early stages of the infection.

The Filoviruses

Marburg and Ebola viruses were recently elevated to family status as the Filoviridae. The name, ‘thread viruses’, is based on their morphology. These viruses made their appearance in the 1960s and 1970s in the form of frightening nosocomial and occupational outbreaks, initially among polio vaccine production workers in contact with Ugandan green monkeys and their kidney tissues, then in independent hospital epidemics of devastating proportions during 1976 in the Sudan and Zaire. Mortality from these infections can range to nearly 90%, that is 90% of infections, not just of clinical illnesses.

The incubation period of a filovirus in a human being, is from 3 to 18 days during which time the number of virus particles climbs steadily in the bloodstream. Then the suffering begins.

Marburg was the first filovirus to be discovered. It erupted in a factory producing vaccines using kidney cells from African green monkeys. Thirty-one people caught the virus. Seven infected persons died in pools of blood in just two weeks. This fatality rate of one in four makes Marburg an extremely lethal agent, yet it is the mildest of the filoviruses. No vaccine is available.

Ebola Sudan

The next indication of the existence of filoviruses came from an extraordinary pair of epidemics in 1976. In the Sudan the initial focus was a cotton factory in Nzara, and several of the earliest recognized cases worked there in a single room. Travel to nearby Maridi introduced the virus into the medical care system, with subsequent latrogenic dissemination that devastated the Maridi hospital. In this outbreak, 150 out of 280 infected people died.

In 1979, it recurred in Nzara, Sudan. The index case had worked in the same room in the cotton factory identified in the earlier epidemic. Twenty-two out of 34 infected patients died. When it first erupted, the medical stuff had used dirty needles which facilitated the spread of infection. Again, no vaccine is available.

Two months after the start of the Sudan emergence in 1976, an even more lethal filovirus emerged. The Ebola Zaire, a new strain was nearly twice as lethal as Ebola Sudan. The fatality rate of Ebola Zaire is 9 out of 10. Staff at a hospital which had been at the epicenter of the epidemic were almost all wiped out: 13 out of 17 of the doctors and nurses died. The disease erupted more or less simultaneously in fifty-five villages near the headwaters of Ebola River.

This epidemic was clearly dependent on the use of unsterilized needles and syringes for its major dissemination between villages, although multiple later generations of cases occurred among family contacts without any defined exposure route.

Ebola is distantly related to measles, mumps and rabies. It is also related to certain pneumonia viruses, to the parainfluenza virus which causes colds in children, and to the respiratory syncytial virus, which can cause fatal pneumonia in a person who has AIDS.

Ebola kills a great deal of tissue while the host is alive. It triggers a creeping, spotty necrosis that spreads through all the internal organs. The liver bulges up and turns yellow, begins to liquefy and then it cracks apart. The kidneys become jammed with blood clots and dead cells, and cease functioning. As the kidneys fail, the blood becomes toxic with urine. No vaccine is available.

Ebola does in ten days what it takes AIDS ten years to accomplish. In principle Ebola-like viruses could spread out all over the world in just one month and a half. Richard Preston, the author of Hot Zone argues that AIDS may be the first step in a natural process of clearance. What is being cleared is human beings: the earth’s immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of our species and is starting to kick in and signal its potential to rid itself of an infection by human beings. There can be no excuse for failing to reflect radically on the way we manage our economies, our societies and our lifestyles. We have no absolute right of tenure of this planet, nor does our collective intelligence or our science and technology afford a reliable immunity from vulnerability, whether as individuals or as a species. We do need to be fearful perhaps, though not to panic – so that we redress the balance in favour of humility in our attitudes and activities, so that we become more caring and careful in using our God-given faculties to prevent the worst before it happens.

References

• MADER, S. S. (1992) Human Biology, WCB Group.
• PRESTON, R. (1993) Hot Zone, Random House, New York.
• MORSE, S. 5. (1993) Emerging Viruses, Oxford University Press, New York.
• DOWDLE, W. (1993) ‘The Origins of Plagues’, Science, 261 (September 17).
• GRIFFIN, B. E. (1994) ‘Live and Let Live’, Nature, 368 (March 3).