Connect with us

Features

Pandemic! Pandemic?

Published

on

By Dr. F.E. Dias

An epidemic affects a high proportion of a population at the same time, and with respect to disease, it means an outbreak that spreads quickly and regionally affects a disproportionate number of people. Pandemics are epidemics that spread across wide geographical areas such as nations and continents. It should be a matter of interest to us that, according to information prevailing and incessant regarding the pandemic, we are said to be in the middle of, the proportion of, shall we say patients, as routinely identified via PCR tests, who show no symptoms of COVID-19 greatly outweigh those that do.

Preamble

Let us first understand what we are talking about. Coronaviruses are a family (Coronaviridae) of viruses that can cause the common cold, SARS (attributed to SARS-CoV) and MERS (attributed to MERS-CoV), the latter two being qualified as Severe Acute and Middle East respectively. The respiratory malady we refer to as the common cold can also be caused by other virus types including rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, adenoviruses and several others, often in combination, with about 200 causal viral variants identified thus far, and many causative agents not yet identified.

Whereas for what is called the common cold there is no clear link between pathogen and disease, the beta-coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2, whatever its origins, is specified as the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19, common symptoms of which are fever, cough, fatigue and many others such as shortness of breath, muscle ache, runny nose and nausea to name a few, symptoms similar to those of the common cold, influenza and other febrile diseases and allergy response. The virus usually spreads via respiratory droplets released from a carrier individual, hence the muzzles we wear while the dogs stare at us pondering at the turning of tables. So, SARS-CoV-2 is our virus and COVID-19 is the associated series of clinical symptoms, called the disease.

Detection

What about the testing to find out whether the symptoms you have can be attributed to SARS-CoV-2? There are three pertinent types of tests. One is the nucleic acid amplification via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test which is used today with the claim that it diagnoses the disease. That is, one is given to understand that it says whether you, even when asymptomatic, are infected and thereby contagious. The other two are antigen and antibody tests. Let us understand.

Antibodies, also known as immunoglobulins, are proteins produced by the B-lymphocytes in the immune system to latch on to foreign substances and consequently remove them from the body, thereby protecting from the potent harm that the foreign substance could have caused. Such foreign substances as recognised by the antibodies are called antigens, which could be toxins or components of pathogens such as the spike glycoproteins of the Coronavirus that help it to enter the host. Detection of the specific antibodies in serum does indicate that the specific antigen has entered the body but since the production of antibodies may occur days or weeks after the antigen has entered and may continue its presence for a significant period after the antigen no longer poses a threat, it does not indicate that you are at that moment likely to develop disease or to infect others. It is not diagnostic by that understanding but will be useful for assessing the durability of vaccine response or of naturally acquired immunity.

Antigens then are substances capable of eliciting an immune response. The antigen test – which is familiar to us as, the rapid test that provides a result in 15 minutes, detects the aforementioned surface protein fragments specific to the virus. While other factors such as the test kit source and competency of swabber and tester do matter, these tests provide a positive result usually when there is high or near-peak viral load. By this point, the symptoms may have begun to appear, and the individual is most contagious. It is fast, cheap and fairly simple, but could be considered as a test for infectiousness than one for infection.

PCR

The polymerase chain reaction is used to replicate a segment of DNA so that quantity sufficient for detection and analysis is produced. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has single-stranded RNA as its genetic material. Reverse transcription (RT) converts RNA into DNA. In each cycle of replication, the quantity of the gene sequence of interest is doubled so that after 40 replication cycles, a single sequence of nucleic acid would have multiplied a trillion times, that is a million of millions. The technique was developed by Dr. Kary Mullis in the eighties and he received the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1993 on account of its vast applications in genetics, microbiology, forensic science and medicine. Even Hollywood used PCR on fossilised DNA to revive and populate the Jurassic Park!

But how is the technique connected to the disease? The protocol published in January 2020 by the WHO, for public health laboratories to use in the detection of SARS-CoV-2, is based on real-time RT-PCR. A paper describing this methodology, now referred to as the Corman-Drosten paper, was subsequently submitted to the journal Eurosurveillance. It was published within 24 hours of submission, raising questions regarding the peer-review process, and two of the authors were members of the editorial board of the same journal. The protocol was consequently used in ~70 percent of tests globally and by a hundred governments and is called the gold standard for COVID-19 testing. We know it as the PCR test which if it turns out positive makes you a patient, understood to be infected and contagious, and all that follows.

The PCR test as conducted as per WHO guidelines is binary qualitative in that it returns a positive or negative result after the pre-decided number of replication cycles have been performed. The number of cycles is known as the positivity threshold or cycle threshold (cT) and is the determinant of sensitivity. The Corman-Drosten protocol does not define the threshold but appears to suggest the use of 45 replications.

Independent analyses of PCR test results against the inoculation and culture of the same samples showed that for 35 replication cycles, less than three percent produced positive cultures. That is, for a cT of 35, 97 percent of PCR test results that came out positive were, in fact, false positives. On this basis, 97 percent of ‘COVID-19 cases’ were not infected with SARS-CoV-2. For cT values above 35, the data approaches the asymptote and indicates 100 percent false positives. Most lab reports do not indicate the cT used in their test but 30 to 45 is usual.

In November 2020, a group of scientists formally pointed out flaws in the Corman-Drosten protocol. Apart from not defining the cT, there were factors such as atypically high concentrations of primer (replication initiators) that cause increased unspecific binding and product amplication, substantial variability and error in test process design that could lead, inter alia, to other Coronaviruses being detected or for residual fragments of viral RNA to be sufficient to indicate the presence of the whole virus. Such residuals may quite well be indications of a battle won by the immune system against last week’s common cold. Also, the genetic code considered for the development of the test protocol was based on theoretical or in silico sequences supplied by a Chinese laboratory since the authors at that time did not have access to infectious or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 or its isolated genomic RNA.

In January 2021, reportedly one hour after the Biden inauguration, the WHO issued a notice urging caution in the interpretation of PCR test results, stating that their protocol is merely an aid for diagnosis and that assay specifics and clinical observations need to be considered. Since it followed that it was no longer the gold standard for diagnosis, a person who tested positive on a flawed PCR protocol conducted with a meaninglessly high cT would not thereby be classified as infected or having the disease. Since then, the COVID-19 numbers have substantially reduced, at least in the USA. Eventually, in July 2021, the CDC announced that it has requested the FDA to withdraw its request for emergency use authorization of this PCR test as a diagnostic tool for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, admitting that it cannot distinguish between CoViD-19 and influenza.

Conclusion

There is the virus and its mutations. It causes illness, and complications and even death particularly when co-morbidities pre-exist. Precautions need to be taken to protect from infection, especially among those with weaker immune systems such as the elderly. Action needs to be pursued to eradicate the pathogen and even to prevent others being developed. And yet, the world has completed a revolution around the sun since the WHO declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic in March 2020. The world has undergone a revolution as a consequence of this declaration and is still reeling from it. The question is, however, whether the pandemic was indeed a pandemic after all, at least until the vaccination campaigns began.

Corman-Drosten paper – https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

WHO adoption – Protocol V2 (who.int)

WHO original – Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 (who.int)

WHO change – WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05

CDC withdrawal – https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Rethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya

Published

on

University of Peradeniya

A recent discussion by former Environment Minister, Eng. Patali Champika Ranawaka on the Derana 360 programme has reignited an important national conversation on how Sri Lanka plans, builds and rebuilds in the face of recurring disasters.

His observations, delivered with characteristic clarity and logic, went beyond the immediate causes of recent calamities and focused sharply on long-term solutions—particularly the urgent need for smarter land use and vertical housing development.

Ranawaka’s proposal to introduce multistoried housing schemes in the Gannoruwa area, as a way of reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive and disaster-prone zones, resonated strongly with urban planners and environmentalists alike.

It also echoed ideas that have been quietly discussed within academic and conservation circles for years but rarely translated into policy.

One such voice is that of Professor Siril Wijesundara, Research Professor at the National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) and former Director General of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, who believes that disasters are often “less acts of nature and more outcomes of poor planning.”

Professor Siril Wijesundara

“What we repeatedly see in Sri Lanka is not merely natural disasters, but planning failures,” Professor Wijesundara told The Island.

“Floods, landslides and environmental degradation are intensified because we continue to build horizontally, encroaching on wetlands, forest margins and river reservations, instead of thinking vertically and strategically.”

The former Director General notes that the University of Peradeniya itself offers a compelling case study of both the problem and the solution. The main campus, already densely built and ecologically sensitive, continues to absorb new faculties, hostels and administrative buildings, placing immense pressure on green spaces and drainage systems.

“The Peradeniya campus was designed with landscape harmony in mind,” he said. “But over time, ad-hoc construction has compromised that vision. If development continues in the same manner, the campus will lose not only its aesthetic value but also its ecological resilience.”

Professor Wijesundara supports the idea of reorganising the Rajawatte area—located away from the congested core of the university—as a future development zone. Rather than expanding inward and fragmenting remaining open spaces, he argues that Rajawatte can be planned as a well-designed extension, integrating academic, residential and service infrastructure in a controlled manner.

Crucially, he stresses that such reorganisation must go hand in hand with social responsibility, particularly towards minor staff currently living in the Rajawatte area.

“These workers are the backbone of the university. Any development plan must ensure their dignity and wellbeing,” he said. “Providing them with modern, safe and affordable multistoried housing—especially near the railway line close to the old USO premises—would be both humane and practical.”

According to Professor Wijesundara, housing complexes built near existing transport corridors would reduce daily commuting stress, minimise traffic within the campus, and free up valuable land for planned academic use.

More importantly, vertical housing would significantly reduce the university’s physical footprint.

Drawing parallels with Ranawaka’s Gannoruwa proposal, he emphasised that vertical development is no longer optional for Sri Lanka.

“We are a small island with a growing population and shrinking safe land,” he warned.

“If we continue to spread out instead of building up, disasters will become more frequent and more deadly. Vertical housing, when done properly, is environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just.”

Peradeniya University flooded

The veteran botanist also highlighted the often-ignored link between disaster vulnerability and the destruction of green buffers.

“Every time we clear a lowland, a wetland or a forest patch for construction, we remove nature’s shock absorbers,” he said.

“The Royal Botanic Gardens has survived floods for over a century precisely because surrounding landscapes once absorbed excess water. Urban planning must learn from such ecological wisdom.”

Professor Wijesundara believes that universities, as centres of knowledge, should lead by example.

“If an institution like Peradeniya cannot demonstrate sustainable planning, how can we expect cities to do so?” he asked. “This is an opportunity to show that development and conservation are not enemies, but partners.”

As climate-induced disasters intensify across the country, voices like his—and proposals such as those articulated by Patali Champika Ranawaka—underscore a simple but urgent truth: Sri Lanka’s future safety depends not only on disaster response, but on how and where we build today.

The challenge now lies with policymakers and planners to move beyond television studio discussions and academic warnings, and translate these ideas into concrete, people-centred action.

By Ifham Nizam ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Superstition – Major barrier to learning and social advancement

Published

on

At the initial stage of my six-year involvement in uplifting society through skill-based initiatives, particularly by promoting handicraft work and teaching students to think creatively and independently, my efforts were partially jeopardized by deep-rooted superstition and resistance to rational learning.

Superstitions exerted a deeply adverse impact by encouraging unquestioned belief, fear, and blind conformity instead of reasoning and evidence-based understanding. In society, superstition often sustains harmful practices, social discrimination, exploitation by self-styled godmen, and resistance to scientific or social reforms, thereby weakening rational decision-making and slowing progress. When such beliefs penetrate the educational environment, students gradually lose the habit of asking “why” and “how,” accepting explanations based on fate, omens, or divine intervention rather than observation and logic.

Initially, learners became hesitant to challenge me despite my wrong interpretation of any law, less capable of evaluating information critically, and more vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience. As a result, genuine efforts towards social upliftment were obstructed, and the transformative power of education, which could empower individuals economically and intellectually, was weakened by fear-driven beliefs that stood in direct opposition to progress and rational thought. In many communities, illnesses are still attributed to evil spirits or curses rather than treated as medical conditions. I have witnessed educated people postponing important decisions, marriages, journeys, even hospital admissions, because an astrologer predicted an “inauspicious” time, showing how fear governs rational minds.

While teaching students science and mathematics, I have clearly observed how superstition acts as a hidden barrier to learning, critical thinking, and intellectual confidence. Many students come to the classroom already conditioned to believe that success or failure depends on luck, planetary positions, or divine favour rather than effort, practice, and understanding, which directly contradicts the scientific spirit. I have seen students hesitate to perform experiments or solve numerical problems on certain “inauspicious” days.

In mathematics, some students label themselves as “weak by birth”, which creates fear and anxiety even before attempting a problem, turning a subject of logic into a source of emotional stress. In science classes, explanations based on natural laws sometimes clash with supernatural beliefs, and students struggle to accept evidence because it challenges what they were taught at home or in society. This conflict confuses young minds and prevents them from fully trusting experimentation, data, and proof.

Worse still, superstition nurtures dependency; students wait for miracles instead of practising problem-solving, revision, and conceptual clarity. Over time, this mindset damages curiosity, reduces confidence, and limits innovation, making science and mathematics appear difficult, frightening, or irrelevant. Many science teachers themselves do not sufficiently emphasise the need to question or ignore such irrational beliefs and often remain limited to textbook facts and exam-oriented learning, leaving little space to challenge superstition directly. When teachers avoid discussing superstition, they unintentionally reinforce the idea that scientific reasoning and superstitious beliefs can coexist.

To overcome superstition and effectively impose critical thinking among students, I have inculcated the process to create a classroom culture where questioning was encouraged and fear of being “wrong” was removed. Students were taught how to think, not what to think, by consistently using the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and conclusion—in both science and mathematics lessons. I have deliberately challenged superstitious beliefs through simple demonstrations and hands-on experiments that allow students to see cause-and-effect relationships for themselves, helping them replace belief with proof.

Many so-called “tantrik shows” that appear supernatural can be clearly explained and exposed through basic scientific principles, making them powerful tools to fight superstition among students. For example, acts where a tantrik places a hand or tongue briefly in fire without injury rely on short contact time, moisture on the skin, or low heat transfer from alcohol-based flames rather than divine power.

“Miracles” like ash or oil repeatedly appearing from hands or idols involve concealment or simple physical and chemical tricks. When these tricks are demonstrated openly in classrooms or science programmes and followed by clear scientific explanations, students quickly realise how easily perception can be deceived and why evidence, experimentation, and critical questioning are far more reliable than blind belief.

Linking concepts to daily life, such as explaining probability to counter ideas of luck, or biology to explain illness instead of supernatural causes, makes rational explanations relatable and convincing.

Another unique example that I faced in my life is presented here. About 10 years ago, when I entered my new house but did not organise traditional rituals that many consider essential for peace and prosperity as my relatives believed that without them prosperity would be blocked.  Later on, I could not utilise the entire space of my newly purchased house for earning money, largely because I chose not to perform certain rituals.

While this decision may have limited my financial gains to some extent, I do not consider it a failure in the true sense. I feel deeply satisfied that my son and daughter have received proper education and are now well settled in their employment, which, to me, is a far greater achievement than any ritual-driven expectation of wealth. My belief has always been that a house should not merely be a source of income or superstition-bound anxiety, but a space with social purpose.

Instead of rituals, I strongly feel that the unused portion of my house should be devoted to running tutorials for poor and underprivileged students, where knowledge, critical thinking, and self-reliance can be nurtured. This conviction gives me inner peace and reinforces my faith that education and service to society are more meaningful measures of success than material profit alone.

Though I have succeeded to some extent, this success has not been complete due to the persistent influence of superstition.

by Dr Debapriya Mukherjee
Former Senior Scientist
Central Pollution Control Board, India ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Race hate and the need to re-visit the ‘Clash of Civilizations’

Published

on

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: ‘No to race hate’

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done very well to speak-up against and outlaw race hate in the immediate aftermath of the recent cold-blooded gunning down of several civilians on Australia’s Bondi Beach. The perpetrators of the violence are believed to be ardent practitioners of religious and race hate and it is commendable that the Australian authorities have lost no time in clearly and unambiguously stating their opposition to the dastardly crimes in question.

The Australian Prime Minister is on record as stating in this connection: ‘ New laws will target those who spread hate, division and radicalization. The Home Affairs Minister will also be given new powers to cancel or refuse visas for those who spread hate and a new taskforce will be set up to ensure the education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism.’

It is this promptness and single-mindedness to defeat race hate and other forms of identity-based animosities that are expected of democratic governments in particular world wide. For example, is Sri Lanka’s NPP government willing to follow the Australian example? To put the record straight, no past governments of Sri Lanka initiated concrete measures to stamp out the evil of race hate as well but the present Sri Lankan government which has pledged to end ethnic animosities needs to think and act vastly differently. Democratic and progressive opinion in Sri Lanka is waiting expectantly for the NPP government’ s positive response; ideally based on the Australian precedent to end race hate.

Meanwhile, it is apt to remember that inasmuch as those forces of terrorism that target white communities world wide need to be put down their counterpart forces among extremist whites need to be defeated as well. There could be no double standards on this divisive question of quashing race and religious hate, among democratic governments.

The question is invariably bound up with the matter of expeditiously and swiftly advancing democratic development in divided societies. To the extent to which a body politic is genuinely democratized, to the same degree would identity based animosities be effectively managed and even resolved once and for all. To the extent to which a society is deprived of democratic governance, correctly understood, to the same extent would it experience unmanageable identity-bred violence.

This has been Sri Lanka’s situation and generally it could be stated that it is to the degree to which Sri Lankan citizens are genuinely constitutionally empowered that the issue of race hate in their midst would prove manageable. Accordingly, democratic development is the pressing need.

While the dramatic blood-letting on Bondi Beach ought to have driven home to observers and commentators of world politics that the international community is yet to make any concrete progress in the direction of laying the basis for an end to identity-based extremism, the event should also impress on all concerned quarters that continued failure to address the matters at hand could prove fatal. The fact of the matter is that identity-based extremism is very much alive and well and that it could strike devastatingly at a time and place of its choosing.

It is yet premature for the commentator to agree with US political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world but events such as the Bondi Beach terror and the continuing abduction of scores of school girls by IS-related outfits, for instance, in Northern Africa are concrete evidence of the continuing pervasive presence of identity-based extremism in the global South.

As a matter of great interest it needs mentioning that the crumbling of the Cold War in the West in the early nineties of the last century and the explosive emergence of identity-based violence world wide around that time essentially impelled Huntingdon to propound the hypothesis that the world was seeing the emergence of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Basically, the latter phrase implied that the Cold War was replaced by a West versus militant religious fundamentalism division or polarity world wide. Instead of the USSR and its satellites, the West, led by the US, had to now do battle with religion and race-based militant extremism, particularly ‘Islamic fundamentalist violence’ .

Things, of course, came to a head in this regard when the 9/11 calamity centred in New York occurred. The event seemed to be startling proof that the world was indeed faced with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ that was not easily resolvable. It was a case of ‘Islamic militant fundamentalism’ facing the great bulwark, so to speak, of ‘ Western Civilization’ epitomized by the US and leaving it almost helpless.

However, it was too early to write off the US’ capability to respond, although it did not do so by the best means. Instead, it replied with military interventions, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which moves have only earned for the religious fundamentalists more and more recruits.

Yet, it is too early to speak in terms of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Such a phenomenon could be spoken of if only the entirety of the Islamic world took up arms against the West. Clearly, this is not so because the majority of the adherents of Islam are peaceably inclined and want to coexist harmoniously with the rest of the world.

However, it is not too late for the US to stop religious fundamentalism in its tracks. It, for instance, could implement concrete measures to end the blood-letting in the Middle East. Of the first importance is to end the suffering of the Palestinians by keeping a tight leash on the Israeli Right and by making good its boast of rebuilding the Gaza swiftly.

Besides, the US needs to make it a priority aim to foster democratic development worldwide in collaboration with the rest of the West. Military expenditure and the arms race should be considered of secondary importance and the process of distributing development assistance in the South brought to the forefront of its global development agenda, if there is one.

If the fire-breathing religious demagogue’s influence is to be blunted worldwide, then, it is development, understood to mean equitable growth, that needs to be fostered and consolidated by the democratic world. In other words, the priority ought to be the empowerment of individuals and communities. Nothing short of the latter measures would help in ushering a more peaceful world.

Continue Reading

Trending