The health and veterinary authorities in the USA report a rapid evolution of the rabies virus, a faster development than what has been known so far. The virus infects skunks and foxes at a speed that requires the attention of disease researchers in the US.
We have all heard of rabies, a viral disease that attacks all mammals (not just dogs). The virus that is transmitted by a bite (contact between saliva and blood) attacks the nerve centers after settling in the brain.
Because of its damage to the nervous system, the first signs of the disease are extreme behavioral changes. According to popular belief, one of the signs is the fear of water, hence the other name hydrophobia. Today there is a vaccine against the disease, a vaccine developed by Louis Pasteur, if the patient receives the vaccine in time (within a few days of infection) there is a good chance of recovery, but a delay in giving the vaccine means certain death.
Because of the uniqueness of rabies, special laws have been enacted in most countries of the world, laws designed to stop the spread of the disease and prevent its outbreak.
So far things are known and accepted, but recently there has been a development that deserves special attention. The health and veterinary authorities in the USA report a rapid evolution of the rabies virus, a faster development than what has been known so far. The virus infects skunks and foxes at a speed that requires the attention of disease researchers in the US.
There is no novelty in sick animals biting people, there is also no novelty in identifying rabies in skunks and foxes that are probably infected by bats, the novelty is in the subspecies of the virus that passes between the animals without a bite. Mutual sniffing or physical contact is enough to pass the virus from animal to animal, meaning the virus is spread like the flu virus between people.
Usually the bitten (a fox or a skunk bitten by a bat) is the end of the road for the virus, because in a short time the bitten will die and if another animal does not bite, the virus will also die with it. However, in skunks, a tolerant infection of rabies has already been observed, i.e. without a bite, as documented in a study published in 2006 in "Outbreak of contagious diseases" Emerging Infectious Diseases.
Genetic studies show that even in foxes the virus is transmitted without a bite. Already in 2001, a case was found in which a skunk bitten by a bat developed a subspecies of a virus that "knew" to pass from one skunk to another without a bite. Since then, rabies continues to infect skunks and foxes despite attempts to distribute vaccines,
Now the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirms that "the rabies virus that affects foxes and skunks evolved from a subspecies that existed among bats and the degree of genetic compatibility can be seen in relation to the development of the new species,"
Such rapid development (evolution) is what worries those responsible for public health, since virologists have not seen such rapid development of a rabies virus species, such rapid adaptation to different animals has not yet been recorded.
As David Bergman from the US Department of Agriculture's David Bergman said "We are seeing evolution in its actual activity"
The question is how dangerous is the development for people?
The proximity of the species - foxes and skunks - to people is a good "opportunity" for the spread of the disease, what's more, there is no need for a bite, so the danger of "jumping" between species is tangible and closer than ever. Construction and development in areas that used to be plowed increases the food sources for bats, skunks and foxes, skunks have learned to take advantage of spaces under houses and turn them into their dens.
Bats have learned to take advantage of attics and mezzanines as their nesting place, foxes enjoy the garbage dumps and thus the sacrifice between the inhabitants of the houses and wild animals is reduced. A similar situation occurred in the eastern United States in 1970 when the development of suburbs brought
For infection of skunks in rabies by contact with Canadian skunks.
The more sick animals there are in a built-up and populated area, the higher the chance of contagious diseases, each infection is a chance for the virus to mutate into a more violent subspecies, and thus the chances of a new species developing, a species that knows how to pass from person to person (like the flu)!
The difference from the flu is while the virus is affecting, the flu virus causes the symptoms of the disease almost immediately after infection, while the rabies virus requires an "incubation" time of about ten days, so it may be easier to stop its spread, provided of course that the carrier can be identified and infected in time.
Spring and early summer are times when increased social activity occurs in wild animals, this is due to entry into heat cycles and reproductive activities, therefore during this period the chances of infection within the species as well as infection from one species to other species are high. To try and stop the alarming development, a quarantine period of 90 days (starting in April) was announced for all domestic animals in infected areas, a plan to vaccinate wild animals is carried out in those areas. Despite everything, the spokesmen of the veterinary service say that: "Because of the great distances that foxes travel, the risk of infection increases, so there is no freezing of yeast
And there is no peace until the summer passes."
With us: even if the new virus has not yet arrived in our area, there is the risk of infection, the irresponsible behavior of dog and cat owners who are "fed up" with them. "Releasing" domestic animals to the wild also because of "kindness" or "mercy" has led to the existence of dog packs that have "gotten wild" and behave like wild animals, with one difference - these dogs are not afraid of human proximity and therefore the chance of their contact / bite is large and dangerous . Add to that the great damage to nature caused by these groups and we have a difficult and dangerous problem.
36 תגובות
The thing I didn't know about rabies is that it can pass without a bite
Can you get rabies from eating feces? (Our dog ate poop today on a nature walk, I know of the existence of many foxes in this area.. outside Beer Sheva)
veterinary nurse,
Could a child who touched the face of an infected cat (and possibly licked it), and then put his hand in his mouth, be infected with rabies? Thanks
Veterinary nurse
Could a child who stroked an infected cat's face (and perhaps licked it), and then put his hand in his mouth, be infected with rabies? Thanks
Wowwww.
Never so many, barked so much...on so little
Laitzik (1)
A vaccinated dog can still get infected with rabies, the vaccine does not protect 100%.
There are different subspecies of rabies and in principle the vaccine should protect only the RABV type which is the most common type in Israel. The vaccine should protect approximately 60% against the 2 types of rabies that originate from bats (EBV1, EBV2). The vaccine does not protect against the other types of rabies at all.
Hello Gillian,
Usually I avoid commenting on generational geniuses like you, but this time I am deviating from my habit.
You underestimated the writer's words and stated that he is not a veterinarian and he should have consulted.
Well, I find it appropriate to respond to your words full of nonsense, inaccuracy, incompetence and ignorance on the subject of rabies.
As a veterinarian and someone who is involved in rabies research, I am sure that I have enough knowledge and expertise to tell you that you are talking nonsense.
And to your claims:
1) "It is enough to lick an infected animal to cause infection, if there is even a miniature and invisible scratch in the skin of the licker" - licking healthy skin is not contagious! Licking a miniature wound - not contagious!
2) "The incubation period of the disease is not ten days but much longer and can last even a month or more (incubation cases of half a year are also known)" a collection of nonsense arising from ignorance! The incubation of the disease is from 10 days to 6 years!!!!! The average for dogs is two-three months, for humans one month.
3) "I think the confusion stems from the fact that the quarantine period for animals suspected of having rabies is ten days - this is because from the moment the animal shows signs of the disease (and it is not contagious before actually contracting the disease)" Again, unfounded nonsense. The animal is contagious up to 15 days before the onset of symptoms!
4) "Rabies was never transmitted only by a bite". You are wrong again! Because RABV was only transmitted by a bite or scratch provided there was saliva on the nails - only!!!
5) "Furthermore, I will expand and add that the instructions of the Ministry of Health are to vaccinate anyone who comes into contact with an animal with rabies, even if not bitten." For rabies (for reasons of savings). Have you thought why 4 people who were bitten by rabies died a few years ago? Why wasn't the soldier bitten by an unidentified dog referred to rabies treatment? Why wasn't the woman bitten by a cat referred to the health office? Both died from rabies... due to the procedures of the Ministry of Health and contrary to the instructions of the International Health Organization. The Ministry of Health does not turn away those who have not been bitten and even then not always - look at the deaths!!!
6) After all, all the arguments as if she had become airborne, are in terms of absolute baseless and irresponsible slander - the only slander here is yours.
I don't know you and I'm not interested, but it's definitely advisable that you drop a chicken because your knowledge is fundamentally wrong.
I wonder how you will attack me, does my doctorate in veterinary medicine not satisfy you, or does my research work in rabies not satisfy you?
Gillian,
In your response #19, you wrote: "There is not a single message of mine that does not list substantive arguments regarding what is claimed in the article"
"And with this fact, written in black by a forum, it is not possible to argue"
And here, in your response No. 21, you attacked me severely, and probably only out of forgetfulness did you omit your reasons for the offending statement:
"Since your interpretation of the article was so poor, I raised the possibility that you might not understand the language, now it turns out that you understand (probably) only what you are comfortable understanding."
I'm giving you another chance to read my interpretation of the article, and justify the offending person's response. Here is my interpretation:
"According to the article, there are signs that, unlike the existing strains of rabies, the new strain is transmitted in a way similar to the way that "humans get the flu"
Avoiding a response may seriously damage your credibility. Readers who do not know you, may think that you have a ** regular habit ** of slandering and insulting just like that without substantiation and without reasoning, and this is a very ugly and even not decent thing to do.
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that my interpretation of the article was so poor
light:
I agree with you one hundred percent. My response was written only because you left room for doubt as to whether it is factually correct.
In my opinion, both the misleading content of her comments and her aggression stem from exactly the same motives.
Michael: Indeed, Dr. Rosenthal wrote that in his article. But that was not the main point of my response. Whether the article is full of errors or not, that is not how a person reacts to an article.
light:
What amazes me is that you didn't see that she just attacks without any justification.
After all, anyone who reads the original article understands that the examples she gives of "flaws" or "deficiencies" in the article (which she claims is full of such) are simply not true and ignore what is actually written in the article. Did you not see, for example, the fact that, contrary to Gillian Assaf's claim, he actually wrote that the mode of transmission of the disease is contact between saliva and blood? This is written in black and white just as Gillian's repeated denials of this fact are written in black and white.
It's not just the unnecessary aggression, it's also the empty arrogance in which she casually dismisses reliable sources like an article in National Geographic (not to mention other writers on the site).
See my response #15, Gillian apparently decided to demonstrate my diagnosis to everyone...
As a bystander, I can't help but notice that regardless of who is right in the argument, Gillian delivers her criticism aggressively, even if she is right (and I have yet to be convinced). Wise words are easily heard.
Noam:
You already understood that there is no chance.
She has yet to say anything true in this discussion and she continues to repeat the same nonsense even though she has already been shown a thousand times that it is nonsense.
Have you ever tried to convince a broken turntable?
Gillian,
So that you have another chance to read my interpretation of the article, here it is:
"According to the article, there are signs that unlike the existing strains of rabies, the new strain is transmitted in a way similar to the way humans get the flu"
And now, without evading, explain to me and the readers of the site, where exactly I misunderstood the article
Sorry for what exactly? I stand behind each and every word I wrote here, and if someone understood otherwise - they have a serious problem with understanding. I continue to firmly assert that this is a hoax and that nothing has been proven.
Not hiding behind any argument - but since your interpretation of the article was so poor, I raised the possibility that you might not understand the language, now it turns out that you understand (probably) only what you are comfortable understanding.
Gillian,
If you read my short response carefully, you will see that I wrote "there are signs of this". This is definitely a proper and exhaustive reservation.
English is my mother tongue, so don't worry, and don't hide behind irrelevant arguments.
I'm glad that this time, contrary to your previous response, you didn't rush to declare "that all the arguments as if she had become carried in the air, are completely groundless and irresponsible nonsense"
And by the way, asking Assaf for forgiveness wouldn't hurt you...
Noam - the one who rejects Momo rejects, because there is not a single message of mine that does not list relevant arguments regarding what is claimed in the article, contrary to the reactions of most of the other commenters, and with this fact, written in black against a forum, it is not possible to argue even if you deny it from today until tomorrow. The documentation is The best proof.
Beyond that, I suggest rereading carefully what was said in the article, and carefully - the problem may be the total inability to understand the English language, either way, there are many objections and the "conclusion" is for now only a theory, and not a sweeping conclusion.
Pay particular attention to the use of the term experts believe, or the phrase Genetic studies suggest, and of course the fact that it is said in the commentary that only foxes and skunks are able, according to this study of course, to transmit the disease supposedly not by bite, only to members of their own species.
And the most important thing - nowhere in the study was it explained, for example, how the possibility that the virus was indeed transmitted by contact with the saliva of the infected animal was ruled out, and of course nowhere (at least according to this article) was the virus itself tested, but only the issue of infection was tested.
Gillian,
You described yourself well: "If you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer"
The following link describes the new type of rabies mentioned in the article, which has so far only been discovered in Arizona.
According to the article, there are signs that unlike the existing strains of rabies, the new strain is transmitted in a way similar to the way "humans get the flu"
It is recommended to read (except for Gillian, who of course already knows it's nonsense)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.html
Assaf, your claim as if I'm hiding behind pseudonyms is ridiculous - after all, my identity is openly published around the web and not from today.
For the rest of the responses that claim to be learned, and which indicate great ignorance on the part of the commenters in every possible field and a basic lack of understanding in every scientific field, allow me not to comment because of my precious time and honor since they respond in a classic "ad hominem" manner without addressing even one relevant argument that I brought , of course because they are unable.
After all, the classic principle says that if you cannot attack the argument, attack the claimant, a principle that is constantly and consistently expressed in the responses of Michael and several other serial commenters on the "Hidan" website.
As for alien visits - if you read the statutes of the association, you will understand how shallow, delusional and ridiculous the argument is as if I am trying to convince someone. What's more - I admit that I'm trying to convince at least the sane and intelligent part of the readers, to understand things rationally and not out of hysterical, primitive and religious reactions of the majority of the commenters here, who are even more impressive and call themselves scientists.
Question: Or maybe: 'Questions'.
Wait, wait, wait,, have you prepared a 'firstfruits' 'viral' Shavuot salad'? What do the 'alien animals' have to do with the effects and incubating effects of the 'rabies' viruses in the seasonal 'airspaces',,
In a rolling thought and 'seriousness': what is happening to the seniors of the 'Sirius group'... of the 'Yaden' website?
*Waving a quick pen:) that's a compliment!:)
Reminds me of Agatha Christie..and many more wonders of the marvelous 'Sphinx' (hint: check its origins in the mythological lineage).
And Noam, Noam, a special addition for you: Agatha Christie: names of stones, which you are so knowledgeable about,,:)
Toph, find the contexts and contexts.. for the article and the fascinating tagovitation system.. between you.
Gillian doesn't need "cardtanshells"
Gillian considers herself an expert on a global scale in a large number of fields, including:
Alien visits and aliens in general
International conspiracies
Earthquakes
Magnetic pole reversals
And now it turns out - rabies too
There is no point in referring her to other sources - all the sources in the world are like a garlic peel compared to her knowledge, she is the source of all sources.
Her knowledge is so vast and absolute that no one else has a place there, and she will try to run over anyone who dares to doubt it.
Assaf and Michael, you are in good company, of all those that Gillian canceled with a quick stroke of a pen.
Gillian:
Indeed I do not read thoughts - that is - as long as the thinker does not write or say them.
The difference between us is that after he writes - I actually manage to read them.
It may seem supernatural to you, but - as someone who believes in alien visits, I expect that when you have billions of testimonies of people testifying to themselves that they manage to read the thoughts of others after they have written them down, you will still believe that it is possible.
I repeat what I said from the beginning and what others have also told you in the meantime: Asaf *wrote* that when they said "bite" he meant "contact between saliva and blood" (and it is clear why he did this - after all, the chance of infection by using a syringe as I described is extremely low) .
The story with the sniffing is the twisting of someone who has already realized that he has been caught.
I'm sure you don't have an example of even that, but even if you had such an example, it wouldn't matter at all.
Asaf:
As is evident from many of her responses - Gillian's main goal is to convince us that there are alien visits.
One of the ways that seems relevant to achieve this goal is to discredit the scientists (since the scientists are the ones who claim that there is no evidence for this).
That's why I don't think your call for constructive criticism will have any effect.
Gillian - in order to pass a professional review it is important to present "cardtanshills"
And not to hide behind "pseudonyms".
As for the incubation period... ten days to two weeks is the common period.
Indeed, I am "only" an ecologist, but in the past I had to learn "a little" about rabies
When I worked in rabies prevention as an attachment to the veterinary service,
A dog that, until the publication of the new findings, undergoes a r...
R. K. I. contact saliva of an infected animal with the blood of an infected person!
Not by "sniffing" not by caressing and not by any form of external contact.
Saliva to blood contact (for the avoidance of doubt) is created in humans.
The facts are taken from sources indicated in the list, you are welcome to contact the sources
To be clear or to criticize... constructive!
Dear Michael, As a skeptic from the land of skeptics let me assume that you do not accept the possibility of mind reading, so there is no reason for you to make the patently irrational assumption that the reader has to guess "what the poet meant" when he said "bite".
For your information - in mutual sniffing it is absolutely possible that there is contact, even if it is very light, which is enough to create an infection in a way between saliva and blood. It is enough if the healthy animal has an invisible opening in the skin, a slight scratch that is easily not visible at all and the infected animal splashes Morocco on it while sniffing (sniffing, as is known, is done very close and not from a distance of 5 meters).
Therefore, not only does the article suffer from inaccuracies - it clearly indicates that the writer does not understand the essence of rabies at all, let alone the learned commenters.
straw man:
This article shows that the subject actually receives attention.
We must not forget that we have not yet discovered a case where a person was infected in this way but it certainly seems dangerous.
Also the reliance on the "ten days of incubation" (if you want to know exactly how many days, ask Gillian) seems to me to be a mockery of the situation of infection in this way, because unlike the situation where the infection is carried out by a bite (again - ask Gillian what they mean when they write bite) a situation where on the way You generally know when the infection occurred, with infection through the respiratory tract it is possible to become infected without knowing about it.
What is interesting is whether a patient (animal or human) who is infected in this way may infect others before the symptoms of the disease are discovered. If not - that's half a consolation.
Gillian:
Apart from the slanders and other inaccuracies, you did not add anything and proved that you do not understand what is being read even after it is explained to you.
Asaf referred to the contact between saliva and blood and thus explained what he meant when he wrote "bite".
You chose to simply ignore it just to attack and then - again just to attack - you also ignored the explanation you received.
For your information: contact between saliva and blood can also be created by aspirating saliva with a syringe and injecting it into the blood. How come you forgot to mention this option?! Simply because you allow yourself what you do not allow others.
Beyond all this - you gave only two (really bad) examples of inaccuracies and based on that a claim that the article is full of inaccuracies.
If these are the best examples you found, then there is probably no inaccuracy in the article.
Why do the press make a swine flu story when there is rabies that is transmitted passively? Where is the hygiene?
Sounds like a disease with the potential for great carnage |:. awareness for prevention.
In the incubation matter. It all depends on the area/depth where the initial penetration of the virus was carried out. With the infection in the neck area, death is expected much earlier compared to infection in the toe (from the toe it takes many months).
Gillian:
In my opinion, it is very clear in the article that there is a new type of rabies that does not pass through like the normal rabies as "contact between saliva and blood" and this is because at the beginning of the article the writer notes right after a bite what was meant (contact between saliva and blood) and then every time he uses the bite it is understandable which refers to the contact between saliva and blood.
If you claim that it is not new that a dog also passes by mutual sniffing (not as contact between saliva and blood) then your claims are justified.
If the incubation period of the disease is not a few days, then you are right and there is indeed an inaccuracy in the article (albeit a small inaccuracy, but it should be corrected).
You claim that "the article is full of inaccuracies and errors" can you give more examples of your claim?
Michael: I repeat what I said again, because it is clear to me, and not from today, that reading comprehension is not your strong point and I copy from my original response: "rabies was never transmitted only by a bite", and not only that - I also explained why not only a bite transmits rabies Furthermore, I will expand and add that the instructions of the Ministry of Health are to vaccinate anyone who comes into contact with an animal with rabies, even if they are not bitten.
And to say "on the whole there was an intention to show" this is an unthinkable argument when it comes to an article that is supposed to be scientific and professional (or am I wrong and the pure science doesn't publish only such?)
Factually: the article is full of inaccuracies and errors, and since rabies can only be transmitted through the contact between saliva and blood, without the need for a bite or scratch in order to transmit it, then all the arguments as if it had become airborne are, in my opinion, absolute baseless and irresponsible nonsense. Of course, a rabbi can pass without a bite - it has always been able to.
Gillian:
What is this misanthropy?
The second sentence in the article is "the virus that is transmitted by a bite (contact between saliva and blood) attacks the nerve centers after settling in the brain. So in your first comment you just showed that you didn't read the article properly.
In relation to the incubation period - this was not the issue - overall the intention here was to show that unlike the flu - here there is time to act after infection and before the outbreak of the disease.
Those who want to get details about the disease without being contaminated by the poison of humans are invited to read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies
Must correct a number of fundamental errors in the article - rabies has never been transmitted only by a bite. The disease is transmitted through the saliva, therefore a lick of an infected animal is enough to cause infection, if there is even a miniature and invisible scratch in the licked person's skin.
In addition, the incubation period of the disease is not ten days, but much longer and can last even a month or more (incubation cases of six months are also known). the disease (and he is not contagious before he actually has the disease), he is expected to die within 10 days.
In the bottom line, an article that suffers from so many mistakes is unfortunately not serious and unfortunately the honorable Dr. (who is an ecologist, not a doctor and not a veterinarian) should have consulted a suitable expert before rushing to write.
A worrying development, but no less interesting...
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Miss you, huh?
Well?
How is it that no one among those who claim that there is no evolution has not yet responded here and explained to us that it is all about the nose of the Creator (who is tired of the sinful stinkers)?
If the dog has a rabies vaccine, is it possible to get infected with the new type of rabies?