Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Zika Virus

Bacteria
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
February 16, 2016

It’s that time again — time for the pandemic outbreak propaganda machine to cry “Wolf!” and justify the mass use of vaccines and the necessity for chemical remediation. The World Health Organization (WHO) has already declared another global public health emergency.1

We’ve seen a string of these over-hyped virus scares over the past six years, from the bird and swine flu to Ebola — all of which died down as suddenly as they emerged, without causing the predicted widespread catastrophic damage in the real world.

This year, it’s the Zika virus, which is being blamed for a rash of reports of microcephaly2,3 among infants born in Brazil. The condition, in which babies are born with unusually small heads, is said to have surged from an average of about 150 cases annually to more than 4,780 cases since October 2015.

Microcephaly Cases Vastly Over-Reported

The Brazilian government has already admitted that overly generous parameters resulted in dramatic over-reporting of the rare condition public health officials have associated with the Zika virus, which has been dubbed by the media as the “shrunken head” virus.

To be on the safe side, when Zika-affected areas began seeing a rise in microcephaly, the Brazilian government asked health officials to report any case in which a child was born with a head circumference smaller than 33 centimeters.

False positives were expected, and when they realized that most of these babies were in fact healthy and normal, the threshold was lowered to 32 centimeters in December. The limit may be lowered even further, to 31.9 centimeters for boys and 31.5 centimeters for girls.

As reported by The New York Times:4

“Of the cases examined so far, 404 have been confirmed as having microcephaly. Only 17 of them tested positive for the Zika virus

Another 709 babies have been ruled out as having microcephaly … underscoring the risks of false positives making the epidemic appear larger than it actually is. The remaining 3,670 cases are still being investigated.” [Emphasis mine]

As noted by The New York Times, there’s actually very little scientific evidence tying the Zika virus to this particular condition.

Still, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus a global health emergency5 on February 1, noting that the “main worry” is the virus’ potential link to microcephaly and subsequent brain damage.

According to WHO, the Zika virus may have infected as many as 4 million people in the Americas, and public health officials in Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador are reportedly all researching the effects of Zika infection in pregnant women.

Poverty, Pollution, and Vitamin Deficiencies May Affect Microcephaly Rates in Brazil

The Zika virus was initially identified in 1947 in Uganda, where it was originally limited to rhesus monkeys. It’s an arbovirus, meaning the disease is transmitted via mosquito, tick or flea bites.

According to ATCC,6 a “global biological materials resource…organization whose mission focuses on the acquisition, authentication, production, preservation, development, and distribution of standard reference microorganisms,” the Zika virus7 — which they sell for about $500 — causes paralysis and death.

In humans, Zika infection typically causes only mild flu-like symptoms, if any, and there does not appear to be any prior evidence suggesting it might cause birth defects.

That certainly doesn’t exclude the possibility, of course, but there are many other factors and co-factors that offer a far more likely and rational explanation for the rise in microcephaly in this area of Brazil, besides Zika-carrying mosquitoes.

For starters, the “outbreak” is occurring in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides.8,9,10

Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you already have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area.11

Environmental pollution12,13 and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. When you add all these co-factors together, an increase in microcephaly doesn’t seem like such a far-fetched outcome.

Vitamin A Deficiency Linked to Microcephaly

Vitamin A and zinc deficiency is considered endemic in Brazil,14,15,16 and both of these nutritional deficiencies are known to depress immune function.17,18,19

More importantly, vitamin A deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of microcephaly specifically,20,21 and zinc is known to play an important role in the structure and function of the brain.22

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists malnutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals as two of the three known risk factors. The third is certain infections during pregnancy, including rubella, cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, and others.23

Researchers24 have also noted that microcephaly follows “an apparent autosomal recessive pattern,” and may be the result of a recessed gene.

Atrazine Also Implicated in Microcephaly

The pesticide Atrazine also appears to be a viable culprit. According to research25 published in 2011, small head circumference was listed as a side effect of prenatal Atrazine exposure.

Atrazine is used to prevent pre- and post-emergence weeds and is the second most commonly used herbicide after Roundup. As noted by Sott.net:26

“The most obvious cause of birth defects in this area is direct contact and absorption of pesticides. A study of pesticide use on tomatoes27 in the Northern State of Pernambuco, Brazil, indicates high exposure to pesticide workers and poor application methods which threaten the ecology of the area.

Women washed the pesticide application equipment, generally in the work environment, without protective clothing or without observing the recommended three-fold washing process … Of the women workers, 32% reported being pregnant more than five times … Almost three-quarters of the women (71%) reported miscarriages, and 11% reported having mentally and/or physically impaired offspring.”

Why Is Brazil Overlooking Teratogenic Larvicide Added to Drinking Water in Affected Area?

A report28,29 by an Argentine physician’s organization called “Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns” also challenges the theory that Zika virus is responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. They note that for the past 18 months, a chemical larvicide that causes malformations in mosquitoes (pyroproxyfen) has been applied to the drinking water in the affected area of Brazil.

Pyroproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, long-term strategic partners of Monsanto, and has been used in a state-controlled program to eradicate mosquitoes.

This chemical inhibits growth in mosquito larvae, thereby producing malformations that disable and/or kill the mosquitoes. According to “Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns,” it’s also an endocrine disruptor and teratogenic, meaning it causes birth defects. The organization also points out that Zika virus has never been associated with birth defects previously, even in areas where 75 percent of the population has been infected. According to the report:

“Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyroproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.”

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

Zika Outbreak Epicenter In Same Area Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes Released In 2015

Source: ZeroHedge.com
Clare Bernishvia
January 29, 2016

The World Health Organization announced it will convene an Emergency Committee under International Health Regulations on Monday, February 1, concerning the Zika virus ‘explosive’ spread throughout the Americas. The virus reportedly has the potential to reach pandemic proportions — possibly around the globe. But understandingwhy this outbreak happened is vital to curbing it. As the WHO statement said:

“A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth malformations and neurological syndromes … is strongly suspected. [These links] have rapidly changed the risk profile of Zika, from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions.

“WHO is deeply concerned about this rapidly evolving situation for 4 main reasons: the possible association of infection with birth malformations and neurological syndromes; the potential for further international spread given the wide geographical distribution of the mosquito vector; the lack of population immunity in newly affected areas; and the absence of vaccines, specific treatments, and rapid diagnostic tests […]

“The level of concern is high, as is the level of uncertainty.”

Zika seemingly exploded out of nowhere. Though it was first discovered in 1947, cases only sporadically occurred throughout Africa and southern Asia. In 2007, the first case was reported in the Pacific. In 2013, a smattering of small outbreaks and individual cases were officially documented in Africa and the western Pacific. They also began showing up in the Americas. In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus — and the situation changed dramatically.

Brazil is now considered the epicenter of the Zika outbreak, which coincides with at least 4,000 reports of babies born with microcephaly just since October.

zika-microcephaly

When examining a rapidly expanding potential pandemic, it’s necessary to leave no stone unturned so possible solutions, as well as future prevention, will be as effective as possible. In that vein, there was another significant development in 2015.

Oxitec first unveiled its large-scale, genetically-modified mosquito farm in Brazil in July 2012, with the goal of reducing “the incidence of dengue fever,” as The Disease Daily reported. Dengue fever is spread by the same Aedes mosquitoes which spread the Zika virus — and though they “cannot fly more than 400 meters,” WHO stated, “it may inadvertently be transported by humans from one place to another.” By July 2015, shortly after the GM mosquitoes were first released into the wild in Juazeiro, Brazil, Oxitec proudly announced they had “successfully controlled the Aedes aegypti mosquito that spreads dengue fever, chikungunya and zika virus, by reducing the target population by more than 90%.”

Though that might sound like an astounding success — and, arguably, it was — there is an alarming possibility to consider.

Nature, as one Redditor keenly pointed out, finds a way — and the effort to control dengue, zika, and other viruses, appears to have backfired dramatically.

zika

zika

The particular strain of Oxitec GM mosquitoes, OX513A, are genetically altered so the vast majority of their offspring will die before they mature — though Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher published concerns in a report in September 2010 that a known survival rate of 3-4 percent warranted further study before the release of the GM insects. Her concerns, which were echoed by several other scientists both at the time and since, appear to have been ignored — though they should not have been.

Continue Reading At: ZeroHedge.com

Zika Freakout – The Hoax & The Covert Op Continue

FactsTruthLies

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 29, 2016

Thanks to reporters and researchers Jim Stone, Kathy Ford, the fullerton informer, Jim West, Martin Maloney, and Claus Jensen, who have moved this story forward and exposed the scam.

If you want to hide anything on this planet, twist it into a (fake) story about a virus. You’re home free.

This is my second article on the Zika-virus scam (article archive here). I’ve been to these rodeos before: HIV, West Nile, Swine Flu, SARS, Ebola. In each case, a virus is blamed for illness and death that actually arises from other causes.

The Zika virus, now being blamed for the birth of babies with very small heads and impaired brains, has been around for a long time—late 1940s, early 1950s—and suddenly, without warning or reason, after inducing, at best, mild illness, it’s producing horrendous damage? This is called a clue. A clue that scientific liars are lying. Furthermore, many of the women who are giving birth to deformed babies test negative for the presence of the Zika Virus.

So, what is causing babies to be born with very small heads and brain damage? While researching my first book in 1987-8, AIDS INC., I concluded: don’t assume there is only one cause for illness. That can be very misleading. Various factors can combine to produce disease and death.

For example, in the case of this “Zika” phenomenon:

One: Pesticide use in Brazil:

Brazil, the center of the “Zika” crisis, uses more pesticides than any nation in the world. Some of these are banned in 22 other countries. And as for babies born with smaller heads, here is a study from Environmental Health Perspectives (July 1, 2011), “Urinary Biomarkers of Prenatal Atrazine Exposure…”:

“The presence versus absence of quantifiable levels of [the pesticide] atrazine or a specific atrazine metabolite was associated with fetal growth restriction… and small head circumference… Head circumference was also inversely associated with the presence of the herbicide metolachlor. (emphasis added)

Atrazine and metolachlor are both used in Brazil.

Two: The TdaP vaccine:

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Is The Dreaded Zika Virus Another Giant Scam

QuestionEverything

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 28, 2016

Hysteria sells and…

It’s hysteria time again. Let me run it down for you.

This is the word: The dreaded Zika virus! Watch out! It’s carried by mosquitos! It can cause birth defects—babies are born with very small heads and impaired brains!

Here are a few scare headlines that were running on Drudge as of 1/26:

“Brazil sends 200,000 soldiers to stop spread of Zika.”

“Stay away from Rio if you’re pregnant.”

“’Losing battle’ against mosquito.”

“Virus threatening two continents.”

Want more hysteria? The Daily Mail indicates pregnant women are being warned not to travel to 22 countries in Latin America and Africa. Several Zika cases are being reported in Italy, the UK, and Spain.

Then we have this from the Washington Post (“As Zika virus spreads, El Salvador asks women not to get pregnant until 2018,” 1/22, with italics added):

“The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years, an extraordinary precaution aimed at avoiding birth defects believed to be linked to the mosquito-borne illness.

…a potentially culture-shaping phenomenon in which the populations of several nations have been asked to delay procreation. The World Health Organization says at least 20 countries or territories in the region, including Barbados and Bolivia, Guadeloupe and Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Panama, have registered transmission of the virus.”

So we now have governments warning women not to get pregnant. A new form of depopulation. Don’t get pregnant. If you do, and a mosquito bites you, you could give birth to a severely damaged child. Not only that, we have massive advisories against travel, for pregnant women. And 200,000 soldiers in Brazil, the site of the upcoming Olympics, are going door to door and distributing information about this new “plague.” Are the soldiers also telling men and women not to have sex? Who knows?

So let’s take a little side trip to Scam City and examine the science behind the Zika virus and the assertion that it is causing birth defects.

Before a virus can be said to cause disease, a few procedures need to occur. First, the virus must be proved to exist. It has to be isolated from a human carrier as diseased tissue, and then that tissue has to be put under an electron microscope, where many, many (Zika) viruses can be seen. Second, tests have to be run on many suspected human cases, and these tests have to reveal very large amounts of Zika in the body. That’s your basic starter kit for deciding that a virus might be causing actual human disease.

In examining the published literature on Zika, so far I see no reports of diseased-tissue removal from a human, followed by electron microscope photos revealing large amounts of Zika.

As far as diagnostic tests on suspected human cases are concerned, I see, as usual, two major types of testing: antibody, and PCR. I’ll briefly review the egregious flaws in these tests.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts which identify invaders in the body. The antibodies ID these villains so other elements of the immune system can repel and destroy them. When a test shows that antibodies geared to a specific virus/villain (like Zika) are present in the body, it means the body has contacted that Zika virus—if the test was done well and didn’t come up with a falsely-positive result. False positives are frequent. But more disastrously, proving the body had contact with a specific virus says absolutely nothing about whether the patient is sick or will get sick. In fact, before 1985, a positive antibody test was generally taken to be a good sign: the body’s immune system had encountered and overcome the invader. After 1985, the “science” was turned upside down: a positive test meant the person was sick or going to get sick. And that meant, of course, more (false) diagnoses of disease and more profit from treatments. In announced “epidemics,” health agencies can falsely inflate the numbers of cases to the moon.

The PCR is a very sophisticated and tricky test to run. It is prone to errors. It takes a tiny, tiny amount of material assumed to be a fragment of a virus, and it amplifies (blows up) that fragment so it can be observed. The first problem with the test is: did technicians indeed choose a tiny sample that actually is a piece of the virus in question? Or is it simply a bit of genetic debris? The second problem is: the test, despite claims to the contrary, says nothing reliable about the amount of virus (like Zika) that is in the patient’s body. Why is this important? Because you need a great deal of virus in the body to begin to say it is causing disease. A very small amount is trivial.

With these two useless tests in tow—the antibody and the PCR—researchers and doctors don’t have a meaningful clue about whether a patient is ill as a result of Zika infection. All case-number reports are suspect, to say the very least.

Therefore, attributing very serious problems to Zika on a worldwide basis is insupportable and speculative. It isn’t science.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com