Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies: Difference between revisions

A number of sahih hadith traditions concerning the wings of the housefly exist, claiming that at least one of of the fly has curative or medicinal properties. Despite the apologetics of duaah, though, these claims are not scientifically accurate.

Apologetic Claim

The thesis put forward is that it has recently been proven by modern science that flies carry not only pathogens but also the agents that limit these pathogens, thus proving the fly wing hadiths (as narrated from Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by al-Bukhari and in the Sunan):

They principally identify these agents to be bacteriophages, though they also sometimes refer to fungi.

Analysis

Bacteriophages (“phages”) are viruses that infect bacteria. It is a well known in the study of bacteria that all natural bacterial populations are limited by phages and environmental conditions, yet calling them "antidotes" overstates the case by far. Mammals, too, are limited by pathogens, but calling these pathogens antidotes would not be a correct use of the term.

Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote?

Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on the hadith:

This statement is evidently mistaken, but is also what must be the starting point in debating on this subject. For if they say that the presence of phages proves that the hadith is correct, then pointing out that phages are not limited to any one wing, right or left, immediately proves the falsehood in the hadiths.

Assumptions of this Argument

A. It is assumed that bacteriophages are antidotal to bacteria. Bacteriophages cause lysis of their bacterial hosts in the final stage of infection – thereby releasing new phage particles to infect other bacterial cells in the population. However, in the natural environment, this state is equilibrial – meaning that only a small proportion of bacterial cells is infected at any one time. Just like only a small proportion of humans is ever infected with the flu virus at any one time (except in a pandemic).^[1]

B. It is assumed that flies must carry the antidote to the pathogens they carry.

The facts here are not correct. Flies do not succumb to human pathogens – they are merely carriers. Flies are reservoirs of human viruses but are not infected by them as humans are.

The transmission pathway is as follows:

• Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto itself.
• Fly lands on human food – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto human food.
• Fly flies away – human consumes contaminated food and becomes sick.
• Fly continues on as normal, free to repeat the cycle again.

C. It is assumed that these relations that do not exist.

The ability to design antibiotics that might utilize bacteriophage infection pathways does not prove that phages are antidotal to bacteria. Antibiotics are not phages. Further, these antibiotics are likely to be ‘artificial’ and do not reflect the natural state of fly-human disease interactions.

Claims about bacteriophages

This passage is mistaken:

A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.^[2]

B. There is no such thing as bacteriophagic fungi. Fungi and bacteriophages are totally different; fungi are Eukaryotes in the kingdom Fungi, bacteriophages are viruses whose status as living organisms is disputed.

Further Claims about bacteriophages

A. Bacteriophages do not attack other viruses.^[3]

B. Not all bacteriophages encode cell-wall destroying proteins to lyse host cells.

Further scientific claims

This states that the microbiota of insects protect them from their (i.e. insect) pathogens. It does not say anything about human pathogens carried by insects.

This passage just attests to the existence of bacteriophages. This has no bearing on whether the bacteriphages present on the (one) wing of the fly can protect humans from viruses.

Extending claims inappropriately

Now it is not only phages on the right wing, but the yeast cells inside fly stomachs and respiratory tubules. We assume it is the yeast antibiotics they are referring to. The presence of tiny amounts of antibiotics (produced by fungi) does not protect humans from enteric diseases. The apologist is conveying misinformation here. The Dosage makes the antidote. Modern antibiotics are artificial and highly purified. Treatment of bacterial infections involves massive doses of purified antibiotics that are not found in the natural environment. The small amounts inside the body of the animal do not offer any meaningful effect for humabns.

Confusing the use of bacteriophage

A. The O1-phage is used for typing (i.e. diagnosing) Salmonella infections, not treating it.^[4]

B. Bacteriophage therapy does work, but as in the discussion above, the dosage makes the antidote. Relative to the small amount of phages found on the wing of a fly, massive doses of phages would be needed to treat each case. A fly dipping its right wing, left wing, or its entire body, will not be sufficient.

Further bacteriophage Discussion

Bacteriophage therapy is a growing area of treatment. But these bacteriophage-based treatments involve the use of genetic engineering and other advanced scientific techniques to utilize bacteriophage pathogenesis for the treatment of human diseases by providing massive doses of custom-grown phages to patients. Naturally-occurring bacteriophages on the wing of a fly cannot be compared to these treatments.

The problem non-bacterial enteric diseases

Even if the wings of flies were to provide humans with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could possibly infect humans with another non-bacterial disease. Flies also spread pinworm, tapeworm, viral gastroenteritis, amebic dysentery, giardia enteritis, and enteric hepatitis. Bacteriophages and fungi are totally ineffective against these diseases.

Conclusion

The scientific evidence does not support the veracity of the fly wing hadith for the following reasons:

1. Contrary to innovative interpretations of relevant hadith, bacteriophages are not limited to any specific wing of the fly.

2. Contrary to innovative interpretations of relevant hadith, bacteriophages in the natural state and concentration are not antidotal to bacterial diseases, particularly for temperate or lysogenic phages.

3. Bacteriophages are ineffective against non-bacterial diseases carried by flies, meaning even if the wings were to provide you with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice).

4. Phage therapy as practiced does not involve ingesting phages from naturally occuring reservoirs such as the bodies of flies since these also carry other diseases and do not contain the right phages or right amount of phages to be effective. The comparison here is inappropriate and uninformative both for the purposes of phage therapy and the study of the fly biome.

Responses to Apologetics

1. According to Nature.com, it has been discovered that "Insect wings shred bacteria to pieces."
   The article in question is referring to the wings of a cicada.^[5] A cicada is not the same thing as a house fly. Cicadas are related to locusts and crickets which are vegetarian unlike the excrement friendly housefly. If you examine a housefly wing under a microscope you will see that a housefly's wing structure is different to that of the cicada's wing. The housefly wing is smoother and has fine hairs which are curled downwards not like the upward pointing spikes of the cicada.

See Also

• Health - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Health

External Links

• Teachings of the Hadith: The wings of the fly - Answering Islam (archived), http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/flies.html 
• Islamic science has come to this pitiful end - PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 29, 2012 (archived), http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/29/islamic-science-has-come-to-this-pitiful-end/ 

Resources on Bacteriophage Biology

References