US health officials warned last week that the Zika outbreak could have more of an effect on the United States and called for additional funding to combat the virus. In fact they now want $1.9 billion to fight the “war against Zika”.
To back their case, after months of scientific study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that there was now enough evidence to clearly establish that the Zika virus causes microcephaly in the newborn offspring of infected mothers.
Their report was published by the New England Journal of Medicine.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
Jon Rappoport asks is it about science or money? :
The new NEJM study on Zika aims to eliminate doubt that the Zika virus causes microcephaly.
Until now, that doubt was widespread. Even the World Health Organization was making careful statements: “…although no definite causal link has been established between Zika and microcephaly (babies born with smaller heads and brain damage), we believe there is a connection…” That sort of thing.
The new NEJM study is supposed to erase, once and for all, that “maybe.”
But it doesn’t. It’s not even close. Because when you wade through the rather dense language, what you see is an attempt to show a correlation between the presence of the Zika virus and the occurrence of the birth defect.
Correlation is not causation. And that’s just the beginning of the problem.
Even on the basis of correlation, nowhere in the study do we see anything approaching a high degree of association. You would expect to find evidence that in, say, 80 or 90 percent of cases, the Zika virus was found in babies who developed the defect. That evidence isn’t there. Well, how about a 90-percent correlation between microcephaly in the baby and Zika found in the mother? Not there, either. Again, not even close.
Then there is the issue, rarely if ever touched on in studies these days, of “how much Zika was found.” Why is that important? Because, in order to begin asserting that a virus causes a condition, you need to discover a very high volume of it in a person. A small amount causes nothing.
The new NEJM study doesn’t explore this vital factor.
So the study is a dud.
It claims that there is a very weak correlation between Zika and microcephaly. That’s it. That’s all.
Nor does the study consider the obvious fact that a condition can have several or even many causes. And what could be causing birth defects in Brazil may not be causing it in the US or Guatemala.
As I’ve clearly established in prior articles on Zika, only a fool or an outright liar would fail to notice the toxic pesticide drenching that takes place in Brazil, the number-one country for pesticide-use in the world. Some of those chemicals are banned in other countries, because they’re too poisonous.
Therefore, in Brazil, a virus that has never been proved to cause microcephaly can function as a cover story. Zika protects, and diverts attention away from, pesticide manufacturers and agri-corporate giants who spray, spray, spray.
And what about medical drugs ingested by pregnant mothers? Again, no recent studies on microcephaly investigate this “protected area.” Given that these medicines kill 106,000 people in the US every year, and maim at least hundreds of thousands more, any rational researcher would be highly motivated to look for a causal connection to microcephaly.
Want another correlation? Try severe malnutrition in the pregnant mother. It’s the number-one cause of immune-system collapse on the planet. Immune-system failure opens the door to many raging infections in the mother and fetus. But no, malnutrition isn’t “medical.” How can you develop a vaccine or a drug to treat it? No money in it.
There is, of course, money in research, and as I said at the top, US health agencies are trying to get more of it from Congress.
The Zika virus was discovered in 1947-8. Since then, it has never been known to cause more than mild transient illness. Suddenly, it’s being blamed for severe and tragic birth defects. On what basis? On no basis.
Who knows how long the virus has been on the planet? 5000 years? 100,000 years? It’s had ample opportunity to spread across the world and around the world many times. The notion that, now, suddenly, it’s traveling, is absurd. It’s already there. And here. And everywhere. It has been here and there and everywhere for a long time.
However, a fiction of “unchecked spread” works, if you’re trying to Invent the concept of a highly dangerous virus that is popping up unexpectedly and making pregnant women give birth to babies with brain damage.
And the people who sell it control the whole operation.
What about actual science? They’ve never heard of it and don’t care about it.
If you persist in believing they do care about it, you’re doing religion, and you’re in the wrong pew.
Meanwhile, the multiple factors that can actually cause tragic birth defects are being ignored.
Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)
- “You Need to Be Our Ally” LGBTQ Activists Warn Corporate America - May 30, 2023
- John Cleese ‘Has No Intention’ Of Cutting Transgender Scene From Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ - May 30, 2023
- Russia Says Evidence Of Avian Flu Pathogens With 40% Kill Rate In Humans, Found At US Biolab In Ukraine - May 29, 2023