Connect with us


More COVID shots are coming. Will a weary public be more interested this year?



More COVID shots are coming. Will a weary public be more interested this year?

A new coronavirus shot will be available starting this week, but the big question is how many people will get one.

Attitudes about COVID-19 are clearly shifting, as is to be expected since it long ceased to be the sort of suffocating public health threat that ground the globe to a halt. But health officials note that vaccines are a major driver of that progress, and continued inoculations — much like a typical flu shot — can help keep the coronavirus confined.

It’s clear that vaccines, once so desired that hopefuls endured hours-long waits or even hit the road in hopes of securing the shots, have become a harder sell as the pandemic eased and people moved on with their lives. Deaths and serious illnesses are down.

That’s not to say there’s no appetite for the latest targeted batch of shots, however.


Attitudes about vaccination

According to survey results released this week, Americans appear more inclined to get the latest COVID-19 vaccination than they were last year. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week recommended that virtually all Americans — ages 6 months and up — get a fresh vaccine dose this autumn using a new formula designed against an Omicron subvariant that was dominant earlier this year.

Just 21% of adults nationwide received the last updated COVID-19 shot that was introduced a year ago. But a survey of adults taken in August, the results of which were presented by the CDC this week, suggest that about 43% of adults plan to either probably or definitely get this latest COVID-19 vaccine.

Such uptake would be more in line with that of the annual flu shot. Survey results suggest 47% of U.S. adults got the flu shot during the 2022–23 flu season.

Doctors say it remains important that people stay up to date on their vaccinations. While the risk of dying from COVID-19 has fallen since the early months of the pandemic — thanks to vaccinations, anti-COVID drugs like Paxlovid, years of natural immunity and a slower evolving virus — deaths can still happen.

“In those with and without underlying conditions, there was no group that clearly had no risk of severe illness,” Megan Wallace, a CDC epidemiologist, said during Tuesday’s meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.


There is some hope that as COVID-19 vaccinations become more routine, like the flu shot, there will be less fatigue. Large majorities of Americans have completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 94% of U.S. seniors and 79% of adults.

For most, that primary series entailed a two-dose regimen of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. However, uptake on subsequent booster or additional doses has lagged behind those more robust top-line figures.

Today, most people who have never been vaccinated no longer need to get a two-dose primary series to be considered inoculated. Now, an unvaccinated person who is at least 5 years old needs to get only one shot to be considered current on their vaccination.

Only unvaccinated babies and young children, ages 6 months to 4 years, will need either two doses of the updated Moderna vaccine or three doses of the updated offering from Pfizer-BioNTech.

Officials also no longer use the term “boosters” to describe the latest vaccination, instead calling it an updated COVID-19 vaccine.


In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll published in April, 32% of adult respondents said they were “very” likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine offered annually, like the flu shot; while another 21% said they were “somewhat” likely.

Vaccine trust

Despite a robust safety record, Americans are less confident in the safety of COVID-19 vaccines than they are other routine adult vaccines and the flu shot.

About 66% of adults think routine adult vaccines as either completely or very safe, and 27% say they are somewhat safe. For the flu shot, 64% consider it completely or very safe, and 26% consider it somewhat safe, according to a survey conducted in August whose results were presented by the CDC.

But for the COVID-19 shot, 49% of adults consider it completely or very safe, and 30% consider it somewhat safe.

Among those who didn’t get last year’s updated COVID-19 shot, the possibility of unknown serious side effects was cited as a key reason.


The CDC says the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. More than 670 million doses had been administered through March 1, the CDC said, “under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.”

“The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks,” the CDC says.

Notably, healthcare providers are slightly more likely to recommend other routine vaccinations to adults than they do for COVID-19. Among adults, 72% said their healthcare provider suggested they get the flu shot, but just 56% mentioned the COVID-19 vaccination.

Encouraging doctors to routinely suggest an updated COVID-19 vaccination — possibly made easier by a simpler, once-a-year time frame for most people — could help boost vaccination rates, experts say.

The CDC said that in one study, the risk of cardiac complications — including myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle — was actually higher among adolescent males age 12 to 17 after a coronavirus infection than after getting a COVID-19 vaccination.


COVID-19 impact remains

From last October through the end of April, there were more than 70,000 COVID-19 deaths nationally, about 200,000 fewer than during the same time period the prior year, but still twice the typical number of annual flu deaths.

So far this calendar year, about 25,000 people ages 65 and up have died from COVID-19, as have about 2,800 adults between the ages of 45 and 64, and about 450 people ages 20 to 44, according to the CDC. There have been 36 deaths among those ages 5 through 19; 18 deaths among those ages 1 to 4; and 26 deaths among those younger than 1.

“COVID-19 burden is currently lower than at previous points in the pandemic, however, the absolute number of hospitalizations and deaths is still high,” Wallace said.

Even people with no underlying health conditions can still die from COVID-19.

New analysis of recent COVID-19 data confirm that “there are deaths, including in children, including in those without chronic conditions,” said Dr. Matthew Daley, a pediatrician and research expert in vaccines who is also a member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. “And my perception is that that those deaths are vaccine preventable.”


Most people who are dying from COVID-19 are not current on their vaccinations.

There was some debate at this week’s CDC advisory committee meeting over the merits of how strong a recommendation the agency should make — whether the recommendation for new COVID-19 vaccinations should be for virtually all Americans age 6 months and up, or more limited to seniors and other higher-risk groups.

A strong majority, 13 out of 14 voting members, favored a universal recommendation.

A modeling scenario showed that a universal vaccine recommendation by the CDC, compared to just suggesting those ages 65 and older get vaccinated, “is projected to prevent about 200,000 more hospitalizations, and 15,000 more deaths, over the next two years,” Wallace said.

Public concerns lessen

People’s feelings about the pandemic have changed over time, with more Americans saying the coronavirus situation is getting better.


In August, just 3 in 10 American adults reported being very or moderately concerned about getting COVID-19, according to a survey made public by the CDC this week. In a March survey from Monmouth University, half of respondents said they would be very or somewhat concerned about a family member getting COVID-19.

How people feel about COVID varies by race and ethnicity, according to survey data presented by the CDC. Among white adults, 38% said they were “not at all” concerned about getting COVID-19, the highest share of any racial or ethnic group. By comparison, 26% said they would be moderately or very concerned.

Black adults were the most worried about getting COVID-19, with 41% saying they would be very or moderately concerned, while 27% said they were “not at all” concerned.

Among Latino adults, one-third said they were “not at all” concerned about getting COVID-19, while a little over a third said they’d be moderately or very concerned.

“Those living in urban areas reported more concern over getting COVID-19 than those in suburban or rural areas,” Wallace said. Urban residents are more likely to believe in the vaccine’s safety — 51% believe it’s completely or very safe — compared to rural residents, 37% of whom think the same, the CDC survey found.


Income also matters. Concerns about getting COVID-19 decrease as income increases, Wallace said. It is wealthier people who have the most confidence in vaccine safety, with about 57% of people making $75,000 or more saying the COVID-19 vaccines are very or completely safe, while 35% of people making under $25,000 said the same.

Vaccine distribution refinements should make administering vaccinations easier. There will be smaller minimum order quantities and single doses in vials. This “is likely to reduce wastage, eases logistics and helps with storage capacity limitations,” Wallace said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Dianne Feinstein’s cause of death hasn’t been disclosed, but it likely wasn’t dementia



Dianne Feinstein’s cause of death hasn’t been disclosed, but it likely wasn’t dementia

No cause of death has been disclosed for Dianne Feinstein, the longtime California senator who struggled with evident health problems in her final years before her death Thursday night.

She was absent from the U.S. Senate for nearly three months earlier this year while recovering from a case of shingles that led to encephalitis, a rare complication that causes inflammation and swelling in the brain. She was briefly hospitalized in August after falling at her home and was often seen in a wheelchair in public.

Indications that Feinstein, 90, was struggling with memory problems have persisted for years, even before the acknowledged health crises in the last year of her life.

Several of Feinstein’s colleagues and former staffers confided to reporters that she was often unable to recognize longtime colleagues and repeated herself frequently. In July she appeared confused during a Senate Appropriations Committee vote and began to read a prepared statement before the committee chair prompted her to “just say aye.”

Feinstein maintained that she was cognitively fit to continue her fifth full term, and neither her office nor her family has ever confirmed if she had any neurological condition.


Even if the senator’s apparent memory lapses were the result of dementia, the disease would almost certainly not have been her cause of death, doctors said Friday.

“In general, older adults often have a confluence of several different medical problems, and to say which one, ‘caused the death’ can be very difficult,” said Dr. Laura Mosqueda, a professor of geriatrics and family medicine at USC Keck School of Medicine. “We don’t need to look for a simple answer to an actually complicated question.”

The most common cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive and incurable condition. Alzheimer’s can be a direct cause of death in its latest stages, when the disease begins to damage parts of the brain that control essential biological functions like breathing and swallowing.

A common cause of death for people with late-stage Alzheimer’s is aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs triggered by food or other foreign substance that goes down the windpipe instead of the esophagus. This becomes a bigger risk as the muscles that control swallowing and chewing weaken in the late stages of the disease.

By then, it is no longer possible for patients to keep up even a semblance of their previous activities.


“You would typically not see someone functioning, walking, talking. Usually people are bedridden at that point,” said Dr. Mark Mapstone, a neuropsychologist at UC Irvine.

Doctors were quick to note that without knowing Feinstein’s health history, it was impossible to know for certain whether she suffered from any neurological condition.

Yet even though her appearance in the Senate in her final years was a shock to those familiar with her during her long career, she was not as ill as a person with advanced Alzheimer’s.

“Dianne Feinstein was looking pretty frail and seemed a little confused sometimes in public appearances,” said Dr. Michael Weiner of UC San Francisco, the principal investigator of the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Yet if she did have dementia, he said, “she was definitely not in an advanced stage. It wasn’t even clear if you can say she was in a moderate stage. You can only judge from these outside appearances.”

Continue Reading


Column: Right-wing judges are on a mission to stop the FDA from warning consumers about snake oil



Column: Right-wing judges are on a mission to stop the FDA from warning consumers about snake oil

To anyone who has paid even a modicum of serious attention to COVID-19 and its treatment, ivermectin is the zombiest of zombie drugs.

Used to treat parasitic diseases in animals and humans, the drug became a darling of anti-vaccination activists and conspiracy-mongers, who pushed it as a treatment for the pandemic disease and claimed it was being suppressed by Big Pharma, among other sinister forces.

Contrary to its continued promotion by quacks such as Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, the drug has been conclusively shown to be utterly useless against COVID.

You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.

— Food and Drug Administration counsels against a useless COVID treatment


One would have hoped that hard scientific evidence and a stern advisory by the Food and Drug Administration against its use would have been enough to kill the ivermectin craze, but it lives on. Last year, three doctors sued the FDA, claiming that its public warning harmed their practices and cost them their jobs at hospitals and medical schools.

A few months later, a federal judge in Galveston threw out their case, ruling in effect that they didn’t come close to having a leg to stand on. That should have been an end to it. But earlier this month, the case was revived by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which takes cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and is, by many measures, the hackiest of hack-ridden federal courts.

The three judges hearing this appeal — two appointed by George W. Bush and one (the opinion’s author) by Donald Trump — found that the FDA had exceeded its authority in advising against the use of ivermectin against COVID. “The FDA can inform,” the court said, “but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.” (Emphasis in the original.)

That’s absurd, says Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, an expert on vaccine policy at University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, and the author of a withering analysis of the 5th Circuit opinion.

The FDA’s job, Reiss told me, is to “balance the need for treatment with safety concerns. If the FDA can’t translate what it’s finding into plain language — ‘do this, don’t do that’ — then it can’t do its job. That undermines the whole regulatory scheme.”


More on that in a moment. First, some context.

Undermining the FDA’s authority has been a right-wing project for years. That’s because the agency’s duty is to stand in the way of businesses desiring to push unsafe and ineffective nostrums at unwary consumers, and also in the way of a perverse idea that personal freedom includes the freedom to be gulled by charlatans.

This campaign got pumped up during the Trump administration. Trump in 2018 signed a federal “right-to-try” law that masqueraded as a compassionate path giving sufferers of intractable, incurable diseases access to experimental treatments. In fact, as I wrote, it was a cynical ploy backed by the Koch brothers’ network aimed at emasculating the FDA in a way that would undermine public health.

Trump subsequently browbeat his maladroit FDA chairman, Stephen Hahn, into issuing an emergency authorization for the use of convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19 patients. Like ivermectin, that was another utterly ineffective treatment.

In announcing his decision while Trump stood glaring at him, Hahn grossly misrepresented the results of a medical trial conducted by the Mayo Clinic, which failed to demonstrate any effectiveness for the treatment. In the run-up to the announcement, Trump issued a tweet accusing “the deep state … at the FDA” of deliberately delaying effective COVID treatments until after the upcoming Nov. 3, 2020, election, which Trump lost. Hahn didn’t respond to that frontal attack on his agency’s integrity.


The FDA is under more solid management now, but the malign influence of judges Trump installed in the federal judiciary lives on. That brings us to the 5th Circuit, on which 12 of the 16 currently active judges were appointed by Republican presidents — six by Trump.

The court has received appeals of some of the loopiest district court rulings of recent memory, largely because conservative litigants in Texas have the ability to hand-pick judges who see things their way.

Among the recent rulings those judges have issued that swear at precedent and common sense are those outlawing the use of the medication mifepristone for abortion (another case aimed at undermining FDA authority) and barring agencies of the federal government from communicating with social media companies, which was brought by right-wing litigants hoping to hobble the government’s battle against medical misinformation.

The 5th Circuit judges have frequently matched the district court rulings they’re reviewing with loopy opinions of their own.

Trump appointee James Ho issued a partial concurrence in the mifepristone case in which he asserted that an “unborn child” was “killed by mifepristone,” and justified outlawing use of the drug by stating that “unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them. Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”


(The court narrowed the FDA’s authority to approve the drug, but its ruling is under review by the Supreme Court.)

In a 2019 case, a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to find that a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, and possibly the entire law, was unconstitutional. In her concurrence, Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee in the majority, approvingly repeated a right-wing congressman’s claim that the act was “a fraud on the American people.”

The 5th Circuit judges combine their clownish approach to the law with a clownish confusion over the federal rules of procedure they are bound to apply. As recently as Tuesday, the appeals court had to withdraw an order it had issued the day before, granting red state plaintiffs a rehearing in the case involving government contacts with social media companies.

The court had originally allowed four government agencies to continue interacting with the companies; the red states wanted the judges to withdraw their permission. But the court’s granting of a rehearing so flagrantly violated procedural rules governing cases, like this one, that are already under consideration by the Supreme Court, that it had to immediately backtrack. (The circuit’s clerk of the court obligingly accepted the blame, attributing Monday’s grant to a “clerical error.”

The judges who made this blunder — Elrod, Edith Brown Clement and Don R. Willett — are the same ones who ruled in the ivermectin case. Let’s take another gander at that ruling.


Reiss terms the ruling “problematic on legal and policy grounds” by “undercutting the FDA’s ability to offer expertise-based guidance about products they regulate.”

The judges were particularly exercised by an FDA Twitter campaign that aimed to dissuade consumers from taking the veterinary preparation of ivermectin commonly administered to horses.

“You are not a horse,” the agency tweeted. “Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.” The agency also issued a general warning headlined “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” explaining that the drug has not been shown to be effective for the purpose and is dangerous in high doses.

The three plaintiff doctors — one from Virginia, one from Texas, and one practicing in Washington and Arizona — had lost their hospital privileges or other professional positions for promoting the drug. The latter plaintiff is under investigation by medical regulators in the two states where he’s licensed. All three blamed the FDA.

The 5th Circuit judges agreed that even though the agency pointed out that it has no power to order patients to do or not do anything and no authority over physicians — who have the legal right to prescribe medications approved by the FDA for “off-label” uses — it had exceeded its authority by using “imperative” language (i.e., “Stop it”) instead of merely declaring that the drug wasn’t approved for COVID.


Yet as Reiss points out, the FDA frequently couches its advisories in such straightforward terms, and has done so virtually since its creation in its present form in 1930. The agency’s warning against unproven stem cell treatments — a dark and dangerous hive of medical charlatans — advises patients, “Don’t believe the hype” and adds that it’s “increasing its oversight and enforcement to protect people from dishonest and unscrupulous stem cell clinics.”

Carrying the 5th Circuit’s ruling to its logical extreme, the agency’s stem cell warning would exacerbate the vulnerability of disease sufferers to quacks hawking expensive and ineffective treatments.

Thanks to its promotion by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy-mongers, ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S. spiked to 88,000 in mid-August 2021 from 3,600 per week prior to the pandemic, despite a lack of any evidence that it is useful against COVID.

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)


Despite the judges’ contention that it has no authority to offer recommendations to the public, Reiss notes that such authority is actually embedded in federal law, which gives the FDA the right to undertake “collecting, reporting, and illustrating the results of [its] investigations.”

“That certainly seems to include conclusions based on the data collected,” Reiss wrote: “Reporting on the result of an investigation that showed ivermectin is not effective for COVID-19 would naturally include a comment that it should not be used.”

In any event, there’s no case to be made that the FDA warnings caused the doctors’ professional troubles. Several professional organizations have warned of the ineffectiveness of ivermectin for COVID, including the American Medical Assn. No medical board needed the FDA to tell it that doctors prescribing this modern snake oil deserved scrutiny.

It’s possible that the appellate judges themselves had an inkling that they were on thin ice in their ruling. They didn’t rule conclusively that the FDA was wrong, but rather sent the case back to the trial court judge for further pondering on technical grounds, such as whether the FDA’s advisories amount to “final agency actions” subject to court review or whether the doctors even had standing to bring the lawsuit in the first case.

“They seem to be trying to hedge,” Reiss says. On the other hand, they didn’t dismiss the case outright, as they should have. The judges cast a shadow over the FDA, at a time when its crucial, lifesaving campaign against medical misinformation doesn’t need any more head winds.


Continue Reading


An Ancient Whale Named for King Tut, but Moby-Dinky in Size



An Ancient Whale Named for King Tut, but Moby-Dinky in Size

In 1842, a vast, nearly intact skeleton was unearthed on a plantation in Alabama; it was soon identified as a member of Basilosaurus, a recently named genus of prehistoric sea serpent. But when some of its enormous bones were shipped to England, Richard Owen, an anatomist, noted that its molars had two roots, not one, a dental morphology unknown in any reptile. He determined that the fossil was actually a marine mammal: a primitive whale. Herman Melville name-drops the behemoth — Mr. Owen called it Zeuglodon — in Chapter 104 of “Moby-Dick,” and Mr. Owen, in a paper that he read to the London Geological Society, pronounced it “one of the most extraordinary creatures which the mutations of the globe have blotted out of existence.”

In August, a team of paleontologists announced the discovery of another extraordinary creature that was blotted out of existence. Eleven years ago, while working in the Fayum Depression of the Western Desert in Egypt, the team excavated the fossil of what they initially thought was a small amphibian. But closer inspection revealed that the bones belonged to a previously unknown species of miniature whale that existed during the late middle Eocene, in a period called the Bartonian Age, which lasted from about 48 million to 38 million years ago. The species, described in a paper in the journal Communications Biology, inhabited the Tethys Sea, the tropical precursor of the Mediterranean, which covered about a third of what is now northern Africa.

Ishmael, the protagonist of “Moby-Dick,” asserts somewhat disingenuously that a whale is a “spouting fish with a horizontal tail.” The newly documented specimen looked less like a fish than a bottlenose dolphin, with a less-bulbous forehead and a more elongated body and tail. Based on a skull, jaw, teeth and vertebrae fragments embedded in compacted limestone, researchers inferred that the wee whale, which dates back some 41 million years, was about eight feet long and weighed roughly 400 pounds, making it the tiniest known member of the basilosaurid family.

All whales are descended from terrestrial animals that ventured into the sea. Some early whales evolved into forms that ventured back onto land; basilosaurids are thought to be the first widespread group to have stuck with the sea life. They were also the last to have hind limbs that were still recognizable as legs, which were probably used less for locomotion than as reproductive guides to help orient the whales during sex.

Melville dismissed whale taxonomy as “mere sounds, full of Leviathanism, but signifying nothing.” He likely would have had little use for Tutcetus rayanensis, the official name of the small-scale whale ancestor. Tutcetus combines Tut — recalling the pharaoh Tutankhamen — and cetus, Greek for whale. The designation also follows the centenary of the discovery of King Tut’s tomb, and coincides with the impending opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, Egypt. The “rayan” part of the name derives from the Wadi El-Rayan Protected Area, which sits about 25 miles northeast of a site so rich in fossil whales that it has been called Wadi Al-Hitan, or Valley of the Whales.


Like Tut, who died in the Valley of the Kings at age 18, the whale is believed to have been a juvenile nearing adulthood. The research team used CT scanning to analyze Tutcetus’s teeth and bones, reconstructing its growth patterns. The bones of the skull had fused, as had parts of the first vertebrae, and while some of the teeth had emerged, some were still in transition. The rapid dental development and small bone size of Tutcetus suggest a short, fast life compared with larger and later basilosaurids, said Hesham Sallam, a paleontologist at the American University of Cairo and leader of the project.

The whale may have been able to feed itself and move independently almost from birth, researchers said. The soft enamel and configuration of its teeth suggest that it was a meat-eater, with a diet of aquatic animals.

The discovery challenges some conventional assumptions about the life history of primitive whales. “The geological age of Tutcetus is a bit older than other closely related fossil whales, which hints that some evolutionary changes in whale anatomy happened a bit earlier than we suspected,” said Nicholas Pyenson, curator of fossil marine mammals at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who was not involved in the work. “The fossil pushes back the timing of how the earliest whales changed from foot- to tail-propelled movement in the water.”

Whales have an unexpected past. Genetically they are closely related to hoofed mammals, called ungulates, and within that group they are most similar to the artiodactyls, such as camels, pigs, giraffes and hippos, all of which have an even number of toes. One of the best-known early forebears of whales was a 50-million-year-old quadruped called Pakicetus that waded in the estuaries of southern Asia, ate meat and, by some accounts, might have resembled a large house cat with hoof-like claws.

Scientists were able to link Pakicetus to the evolutionary lineage of whales because it had an ear bone with a feature unique to those modern-day giants of the deep. “Importantly, its ankle bones look like those of artiodactyls and helped to support the link of whales to artiodactyls that had previously been suggested by DNA,” said Erik Seiffert, an anatomist at the University of Southern California who collaborated on the paper.


The artiodactyls begot the semiaquatic ambulocetus, a so-called walking whale that looked like a crocodile, swam like an otter and waddled on land like a sea lion. “Ambulocetus actually still had fairly well-developed hind limbs, so it wouldn’t have had a hard time getting around on land,” Dr. Seiffert said. Ambulocetus, in turn, begot protocetid, a more streamlined halfway creature that fed in the sea, but may have returned to land to rest. Over evolutionary time, its hind limbs became smaller, and it maneuvered entirely with its tail.

Eventually, these proto-cetaceans gave rise to archaeocet, a fully aquatic basilosaurid. Aided by flippers and paddle-like tails, basilosaurids dispersed through the oceans worldwide. The one that turned up on that Alabama plantation in 1842 may even have crossed the Atlantic.

Mohammed Antar, a paleontologist at Mansoura University who dug up the Tutcetus fossil and was first author of the new paper, said climate and location may have made the Fayum Depression inviting to basilosaurids. “Modern whales migrate to warmer, shallow waters for breeding and reproduction, mirroring the conditions found in Egypt 41 million years ago,” he said.

The setting seems to have provided relatively safe harbor for female whales to give birth in shallow waters. “As far as we can tell from the abundant fossils of tree-living primates found there, the area lining the northern edge of what is now the Sahara was effectively a tropical forest during the middle Eocene,” Dr. Seiffert said. The protected coasts of northern Africa, he added, “might have allowed whale calves time to mature and reach a level of navigational and feeding proficiency before heading out into open water, then very deep water.”

In August, shortly before the diminutive Tutcetus was unveiled in Egypt, paleontologists working in Peru reported the discovery of an extinct whale that may have been the heaviest animal ever. Perucetus colossus swam the oceans 38 million years ago and is estimated to have weighed as much as 200 tons, a figure comparable to the blue whale, the current record-holder.


Perucetus and Tutcetus were alive just a few million years before primitive whales began their evolutionary split into the two cetacean suborders of today: the toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises known as odontoceti, and the baleen-bearing mysticeti, including blue whales and humpbacks.

“The mysticetes tend to be much larger than the odontocetes,” said Jonathan Geisler, an anatomist at the New York Institute of Technology. “And this difference is related to their different feeding strategies.” Toothed whales hunt individual prey such as fish and squid, while baleen whales filter-feed to gather krill, copepods and tiny schooling fish.

“Understanding the size of the ancestor of all modern whales helps us understand how these feeding behaviors and distinct body size differences evolved,” Dr. Geisler said. “Tutcetus is one data point in the effort, but it supports the hypothesis that the common ancestor of all living cetaceans was fairly small.”

Dr. Sallam said that similar to the way Melville, reflecting on the Basilosaurus skeleton found in 1842, imagines a time when “the whole world was the whale’s,” the discovery underscores the transient nature of existence and provides a tangible connection to a prehistoric past. “The significance of the find, like the fossils described in ‘Moby Dick,’ extends beyond the realm of paleontology,” he said. “It highlights the enduring fascination with Earth’s ancient history.”

Continue Reading