In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Short Cuts: Harry Goes Rogue

Jonathan Parry

Biting HabitsHugh Pennington
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Vol. 38 No. 4 · 18 February 2016

Biting Habits

Hugh Pennington on the Zika virus

‘The​ recent cluster of cases of microcephaly and other neurological disorders reported in Brazil, following a similar cluster in French Polynesia in 2014, constitutes a public health emergency of international concern.’ The statement by Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organisation, on 1 February was very precise. It wasn’t about the spread of Zika virus itself, but about the possible complications of an infection caused by it. The ‘neurological disorders’ are cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, victims of which have paralysis ascending from their legs, sometimes leading to respiratory failure, and loss of feeling with a ‘glove and stocking’ distribution. It isn’t rare. Neither is microcephaly. I looked after people with it when I was a nurse in a hospital for the intellectually disabled (established 150 years ago as the Asylum for Idiots and Imbeciles of the Seven Northern Counties). Congenital microcephaly is a devastating condition. Children with it will at best have severe intellectual impairment for the whole of their lives. But 90 per cent of Guillain-Barré syndrome sufferers recover. As a houseman in London, I looked after a totally paralysed pregnant patient. Her delivery was fast and uneventful. Recovery started at once. A month later only her eyelids remained weak.

So far, the link between microcephaly, the Guillain-Barré syndrome and a Zika infection is only one of coincidence. But it has been known for years that in many cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, the sufferer will have had a recent history of infection, and that infections during pregnancy can cause microcephaly. Rubella is the best-known example, but it is very unlikely that it has anything to do with the current problem. A successful and vigorous immunisation campaign eradicated the virus in Brazil. The last baby with congenital rubella syndrome was born on 12 September 2009.

Chan had no choice whether or not to make her declaration. The incidence of congenital microcephaly in Brazil and its possible cause(s) requires urgent investigation, and Guillain-Barré syndrome is not a trivial condition. Even so, she had to measure her words with care. The WHO was criticised for overreaction when it declared the worldwide spread of swine flu a pandemic in 2009, and for tardiness in its response to Ebola in West Africa.

For the moment big questions remain. How strong is the evidence that the mothers of babies with microcephaly have been infected with the Zika virus? Do all the microcephaly cases have similar brain abnormalities? When during gestation did they develop? Can the Zika virus be isolated from these children? Are any other microbes involved? Why do current reports emphasise microcephaly in Brazil and Guillain-Barré syndrome in Colombia? Has the genome sequence of the Zika virus changed recently? The last of these questions is technically the easiest and cheapest to answer. Results and analyses should begin to arrive within weeks. On 3 February the UK Medical Research Council announced that as much as £1 million has been made available through its Rapid Response scheme to fast-track Zika research.

To understand Zika’s past, present and future, compare it with yellow fever, one of the great plagues of the past. It was fear of yellow fever that drove politicians and charities to action: about 15 per cent of cases develop a haemorrhagic fever clinically similar to Ebola, and as lethal as Asiatic smallpox. The Rockefeller Foundation deserves most of the credit for defeating it. By 1950 it had withdrawn from research and fieldwork on the virus because it believed all the necessary discoveries had been made. Scientifically it was the right decision. But in its New York labs the foundation continued research on different but similar viruses. It reported that new viruses discovered in African forests during the investigation of yellow fever appeared to simulate the epidemiology of yellow fever, and that it was possible they were responsible for hitherto unrecognised infections. It said that one of the new agents, the Zika virus, was related to the West Nile and dengue viruses.

The co-discoverers of the Zika virus were the pathologist George Dick and the entomologist and epidemiologist Alexander Haddow, who worked together for the Colonial Medical Service at the Yellow Fever Institute in Entebbe. Haddow was a mosquito man. To study their biting habits he used human bait. Dick was a virus hunter, and used monkeys as his bait. In the 1940s, looking for yellow fever, they chose the accessible Zika forest near Entebbe because a monkey that had been shot there was found to have the virus. Zika became one of the most intensively studied forests in Africa, even though yellow fever virus wasn’t found again there until 1972, when there was a brisk outbreak in monkeys.

On 18 April 1947, in a cage high on a tree in the forest, rhesus monkey number 766 developed a fever. Its serum was introduced into the brains of mice. They fell ill. This was the Zika virus. Haddow wanted to know more about the high-flying mosquitoes and their viruses and built a 120 foot steel tower in the forest to capture them. The best time and place to find Zika virus was in the evening, 80-100 feet above the forest floor. The first reported case of human infection with the Zika virus was in 1964. Another Entebbe virologist, David Simpson, had a 36-hour fever, some back pain, a headache and a rash. Three days later he had recovered apart from some spots.

For many years the Zika virus was thought to be unimportant. There was no evidence to suggest that it could do anything more than cause an illness like Simpson’s. In fact a Zika infection almost certainly caused no symptoms at all in the majority. Antibody studies in Nigeria in the early 1970s found that 40 per cent of people had been infected at some time in the past; people in India and South East Asia had also been infected, with the same very mild consequences.

In 2007 things began to change. A big Zika outbreak occurred on Yap Island in Micronesia in the south-western Pacific. The symptoms were mild: a rash, sore eyes and joint pain. Alarm bells rang because the outbreak was by far the biggest that had been recorded to date – it was estimated that well over half the residents had been infected – and because the virus had travelled so far to get to Yap. There was fear that it might spread to the Americas. Another big Zika outbreak began in late 2013 in French Polynesia. This time a number of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported that seemed to be associated with the virus.

In May 2015 the first confirmed indigenous cases of Zika virus infection were reported in north-east Brazil. Since then it has spread across the country, and so far has appeared in Mexico, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Central America, Paraguay and other South American countries, though not yet Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Uruguay or Argentina. None of this is a surprise. The mosquito that spreads it, Aedes aegypti, which also spreads dengue and yellow fever, is not under control. It occurs in all American countries with tropical or sub-tropical regions. Dengue is currently on the rampage in Brazil: in 2015 there were 1.6 million suspected cases (almost certainly a large underestimate) and 839 deaths.

The​ Rockefeller Foundation committed itself to the eradication of yellow fever in 1915. Apparent success in South America came quite quickly. Aedes aegypti is very urban, but in the early years of the campaign it wasn’t necessary to get rid of it completely in order to make yellow fever disappear; if Aedes aegypti bred in fewer than 5 per cent of houses that was good enough. But after twenty years the virus returned, infecting the generation that had been born since its initial disappearance and so lacked immunity against it. The Brazilian Government Decree No. 8675 of 4 February 1942 made the eradication of Aedes aegypti an official objective. The aquatic habitats of its larvae were chemically treated; final eradication required the use of DDT. The mosquito had gone from Brazil by 1958, and together with most South American countries it was certified free of Aedes aegypti by the Pan American Health Organisation. The next step was to eradicate it throughout the Americas. The US signed up but at first did nothing, in spite of the occurrence of the mosquito in nine Southern states. (Mexico’s minister of health pointedly presented the US surgeon general with a transparent plastic block containing the embedded corpses of the ‘last two Aedes aegypti in Mexico’.) An eradication programme started in 1964 in Texas and southern Florida, but little enthusiasm was shown by politicians, public health professionals or the public: the money, they said, could be better spent. The programme was finally brought to an end after the election of Richard Nixon, a casualty of Republican meanness, US citizens’ objections to mosquito searchers entering their property, and growing opposition to DDT.

In 1976 the mosquito returned to Brazil, almost certainly from the north. There is no conclusive evidence that it came from the US, but it’s possible. Fertilised females don’t fly far – probably no further than 800 metres – but the eggs are tough and larvae travel well in water carried in small containers. Even though dengue appeared in Brazil in 1981, the attempt to eradicate Aedes aegypti was dropped, to be replaced in 1986 with a control policy. The yellow fever fear-factor has gone: an effective and safe vaccine was developed by Max Theiler of the Rockefeller Foundation in the 1930s.

Now the mosquito is thriving again. The pressing issue is the possible link between the Zika virus and microcephaly. It hasn’t been reported in accounts of other Zika virus outbreaks. But viruses like Zika can mutate very fast. West Nile virus is related to Zika. After its initial discovery it remained quiet for years. Then in the mid-1990s it became nastier: there were epidemics in North Africa and Southern Europe, and it caused severe brain disease. It took off in New York in 1999, and spread rapidly across the US. Could Zika spread in the US? Yes. Aedes aegypti occurs in Florida, most southern states including Texas and New Mexico, and has been found in California. It would be very easy for someone travelling in South America to be infected without realising, return to the US carrying the virus, then be bitten by a mosquito which flies off eventually to infect someone else.

Infected travellers will be returning to the UK every day. But the likelihood of catching it from one of them is remote. It is theoretically possible to get it from a blood transfusion from an asymptomatic recent returnee but the risk of that is extremely low. (Donors returning from countries with Zika now have to wait 28 days before giving blood.) There is even less chance of transmission by a British mosquito. The Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, has transmitted Zika virus in laboratory experiments. It has been spreading across the world during the last three decades and is now well established in southern Europe as well as North and South America. In 2007 it was the vector of an outbreak of Chikungunya (caused by a virus unrelated to Zika) with 197 cases in Italy. Aedes albopictus usually moves from country to country in used car tyres. A well-studied incursion into the Netherlands was associated with the import of Dracaena sanderiana, ‘lucky bamboo’, from China. There was a panic; sightings of the mosquito were made all over the country. None was verified. The climate was too cold for the mosquito to establish itself. It is the same, so far, in the UK.

Aedes aegypti has been a vector for disease in Britain only once, in 1865. Yellow fever-infected mosquitoes flew off the ship Hecla on its arrival in Swansea after a six-week voyage from Cuba and caused an outbreak in the town that killed 15. Two of Hecla’s crew had died just before the boat left Cuba, three died during the voyage, and another on the day the ship arrived. It’s unlikely that these circumstances will be repeated.

Developing a safe Zika vaccine will take years. Max Theiler was lucky with his yellow fever vaccine: it contains live virus that has never mutated back to virulence. If Zika does cause brain abnormalities one would have to be certain that any vaccine virus, especially a live one, didn’t do the same. The immunology of viruses closely related to Zika is complex. There are four serotypes of dengue. Infection with one of them will give you lifelong immunity to it, but it will also make you more likely to develop a more severe haemorrhagic illness if you are infected with another serotype.

The quickest way to stop Zika in Brazil will be to attack the mosquitoes. Sexual transmission from person to person has happened, but on the grand scale of things isn’t important. The Olympics are near. Insecticides and GM are being used – male mosquitoes which have been genetically modified to cause their offspring to die have been shown to reduce Aedes aegypti populations by 90 per cent. Past experience with Aedes control shows that what works best is a combination of source reduction (by removing or covering water containers, and treating water to kill larvae), indoor and outdoor insecticide spraying, and community education. It may be that biological controls will be used as well: larvivorous fish, big water-fleas and Toxorhynchites, a mosquito with vegetarian adults which emerge from larvae that live off the larvae of other mosquitoes.

If Zika virus behaves like urban yellow fever, transmission should stop when 95 per cent of houses are free of breeding Aedes aegypti. But dengue transmission continues unabated in Brazil. As things stand, the mosquito is unlikely to be staying away from that many houses.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 38 No. 6 · 17 March 2016

Hugh Pennington concludes his history of the Zika virus by stating that ‘transmission should stop when 95 per cent of the houses are free of breeding Aedes aegypti,’ the mosquito that transmits the virus (LRB, 18 February). The critical question is how we reach this target. The current method is massive use of insecticides, notably pyriproxyfen. An alternative would be to confront the problem of low-grade housing that provides multiple breeding grounds for the mosquito.

Earlier this month a report by Argentinian doctors treating populations in villages sprayed by the pesticide persuasively argued that the use of pyriproxyfen, including its addition to drinking water supplies, could be a major factor in the increased incidence of microcephaly. A publication on pyriproxyfen from the US Environment Protection Agency in June 2015 reports liver toxicity and ensuing endocrine changes. Disruption of endocrine action, notably thyroid hormone action, has major deleterious effects on brain development. In 2005, a draft assessment report on pyriproxyfen submitted to the European Commission made particular mention of the risk to bystanders during spraying, especially in enclosed spaces. No such concern seems to be in the mind of the Brazilian government as health department workers in protective clothing copiously fumigate and spray the streets of major towns with no regard for the safety of unprotected onlookers. As the Argentinian doctors conclude, ‘massive spreading using planes … is criminal, useless, and a political manoeuvre to simulate that actions are taken. The basis of the progress of the disease lies in inequality and poverty, and the best defence is community-based action.’

Barbara Demeneix
Natural History Museum, Paris

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.