Ebola Highlights How It Sucks To Be Related to Humans

Poor gorillas. At least they have an excuse not to believe in evolution, however crappily it might impact their lives.

Recent outbreaks of Ebola among people in Africa also killed thousands of gorillas, animals already threatened by hunting, a new study reports.

Outbreaks in Congo and Gabon in 2002 and 2003 killed as many as 5,500 gorillas and an uncounted number of chimpanzees, a research team led by Magdalena Bermejo of the University of Barcelona in Spain reports in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

While conservationists had raised concern about gorilla mortality previously, Bermejo's study provides an estimate of how many died in the epidemic.

"Add commercial hunting to the mix, and we have a recipe for rapid ecological extinction," the researchers wrote. "Ape species that were abundant and widely distributed a decade ago are rapidly being reduced to a tiny remnant population."

In case anyone didn't see Outbreak, Ebola is one of the nastier diseases you (or your favorite simian) can contract, marked by a delightful hemorrhagic fever with the added bonus of vomiting, diarrhea, weakness, pain. Oh, death too. In fact, one of the reasons Ebola isn't more of a problem is that its *too* lethal, insofar that it often kills its host faster than the infection occurs, despite being quite infective.

Tags

More like this

Ebola Virus, one of the most deadly of all viral diseases, has killed more than 5,000 gorillas in the Republic of Congo and Gabon, located in central Africa. In addition to commercial hunting of gorillas, this outbreak of ebola could be sufficient to push gorillas into extinction. The study,…
As I've noted before, filoviruses are some of my favorite pathogens. I don't work on them myself--though in the pre-children era I certainly thought about it--but I find them absolutely fascinating to read about and follow the literature. Mostly, I think, this is because after knowing about them…
Longtime readers know of my fascination with Ebola. Much of it is fueled not by the fact that it's a major killer of humanity, because it's not: in 30 years, it's been responsible for a bit less than 2,000 human infections, and ~1,200 deaths. Bats have long been suspected to be a reservoir of…
[From the archives; originally published Nov. 3, 2005] Ebola is one of my favorite pathogens. With the reputation it has, many people assume it's killed many more worldwide than it actually has. People hear of Ebola and all kinds of grotesque images come to mind: organs "liquefying" (doesn't…

Just have scientists have [crossiants], for use in future [munchie attatcks], I am sure they can put [butterfingers] to good use.

Have [milk]!

Although airborne transmission between monkeys has been demonstrated in a laboratory,is this how they assume it is transfered in Africa? Luckily no human to human transfers have been found. Even though we are 99% similar to chimps, we are alot different too.

By Hector Salavarrieta (not verified) on 12 Dec 2006 #permalink

I was under the impression that human-human transmission of Ebola was well documented - see Wikipedia entry.

I'm slightly sceptical of this report - 5,500 gorillas is a lot of gorillas, in one of the most inaccessible areas on Earth, so how were these numbers calculated? Combine this level of infection with the bushmeat trade, and I'd would have expected to see an outbreak in the human population as well. Unfortunately I can't access the study - any more details available?