|
Back to TSE Homepage
Apocalpyse never: from BSE to Sars,
we are addicted to paranoia and panic
Magnus Linklater
The Times
Filed 31 Dec 03
www.land-care.org.uk
This article from THE TIMES 30th Dec 03 is
reproduced with kind permission
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-946682,00.html
If this is the age of reason, why are we so prone to panic? Science
marches on, telling us more and more about disease and how to treat
it, yet a small outbreak of Sars can send an entire nation into
quarantine, while one single case of "mad cow" disease
in Washington State threatens the entire US beef industry. In neither
case is this hysteria justified. Compared with the devastating effect
of an earthquake in Iran, which has killed more than 20,000 people,
the threats are minor, pathetic really. Yet politicians and scientists
who urge restraint invite ridicule rather than respect. We are,
it seems, addicted to paranoia.
The reappearance of a few cases of Sars
in Guangdong province in the past few days reminds us of the great
epidemic which was said, at one point earlier this year, to threaten
an apocalypse. It led to the sealing of Chinese borders, the cancelling
of flights abroad, and the virtual isolation of Toronto where a
handful of victims were discovered. Yet, what was the net effect
of this new destroyer? Approximately 8,000 people fell ill, and
of these, 774 died. That is a world figure, yet it is less than
a fifth of those who die annually from influenza in Britain alone.
What was the fuss about?
Certainly, Sars was a new disease, its effects
hard to quantify at the start. But the way in which it was diagnosed,
treated and contained was a model of its kind. The coronavirus that
caused it was identified early on, at which point scientists were
able to advise on treatment, as well as the best ways of preventing
its spread. One thing that became rapidly clear was that most people
who contracted it recovered fully. As with flu, those who died were
mainly the old and the frail. It was, in short, a well-controlled
illness of medium seriousness.
A similar scare is now threatened by the
discovery of BSE in America. Within hours of the announcement, there
was something akin to meltdown in US cattle farming. Trading of
beef futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was halted as almost
two dozen countries which together consume 90 per cent of American
beef exports banned all trade in US beef and cattle products, putting
at risk a $27 billion industry.
And yet the evidence of any threat to human
beings from "mad cow" disease is so slight that in any
rational scientific forum they would be dismissed as non-existent.
It rests on the suggestion that variant Creuzfeld-Jakob disease
(vCJD) can be transmitted to humans if they eat infected meat.
In the name of this link the entire British beef
industry was brought to its knees in the 1990s, with exports barred
and thousands of cattle destroyed at a cost to the Exchequer of
£4.5 billion. Predictions of a vCJD epidemic were dire; so
much infected meat had entered the food chain by the time BSE was
identified that likely deaths among the British public were estimated
in the hundreds or even thousands.
Yet what has happened? I checked the latest figures
yesterday with the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. Last year
there were just 16 deaths attributed to vCJD in Britain, down yet
again on the previous year. What is more, the evidence of any link
with BSE has slumped from slight to negligible.
Scientists such as the Australian, Professor Alan
Ebringer, and the British farmer turned expert, Mark Purdey, have
challenged the theory, first advanced by the Nobel prize-winning
American virologist, Stanley Prusiner, who claims that BSE is caused
by molecules known as prions which could indeed infect human beings.
They argue that the cause lies elsewhere, and say the link with
vCJD is unproven.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Veterinary
Immunology, Ebringer reports on further tests which point to the
more likely cause of the disease - an infective microbe called Acinetobacter.
His results seem persuasive, but the Government is no longer supporting
his research.
Why then are the voices of sanity ignored, while
the panic merchants hog the limelight? Most experts blame the media
for pumping up medical stories in search of a better headline. That
may be partly true. But there is no doubt that we have become a
jumpy generation, prone to believing the worst.
Scientists must take some of the responsibility.
They tend to play up the risks of an epidemic, lest they be accused
of complacency or, worse, a cover-up; their research grants may
depend on it. Politicians, for their part, have lost the trust of
the public. If they say there is no danger, they are not believed.
They are no longer confident enough of the facts to reassure the
public, so they hope to look more responsible by emphasising the
risks instead.
Lost in the middle of all this is the truth. It
is, or should be, the ultimate goal of a rational society, and it
is usually a great deal less threatening than we are led to believe.
Further Reading recommended by Land-Care
 Editorial
(2003). SARS virus: Just look at the speed of progress. If it can
be done for SARS, why not for FMD?
See Science Homepage, filed 16 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
Linklater,
Magnus (2003). Government stops funding for BSE critic.
Reproduced with permission from THE TIMES April 24, 2003
See TSE Homepage, filed 25 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Wilson,
C., Hughes, L. E., Rashid, T., Ebringer, A. and Bansal, S. (2003).
Antibodies to Acinetobacter Bacteria and Bovine Brain Peptides,
Measured in Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in an Attempt
to Develop an Ante-Mortem Test.
J. Clin. Lab. Immunol. Published online, 13 March 2003. (Download
PDF).
Editorial
(2003). The Genetic Hypothesis for BSE
See TSE Homepage, filed 7 Dec 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Irvine,
James (2003). Fewer future deaths from vCJD predicted
than previously estimated.
See TSE Homepage, filed 15 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
|
