CDC claims Zika causes paralysis, when it’s actually the anti-Zika insecticide that’s harming people

Paralysis
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
September 7, 2016

For some reason, the federal government’s principle public health agency keeps trying to turn the Zika virus into something it isn’t: a major health crisis. At the same time, it wants to poison us with a chemical that is far worse than the disease it is meant to eradicate.

Based on little more than anecdotal evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have us believe that the Zika virus, which medical scientists have been aware of for decades, causes a rare paralytic condition known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

“Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an uncommon sickness of the nervous system in which a person’s own immune system damages the nerve cells, causing muscle weakness, and sometimes, paralysis,” the agency says on its website.

“Several countries that have experienced Zika outbreaks recently have reported increases in people who have Guillain-Barre syndrome,” the agency said, adding that its own research “suggests” that Zika could lead to an increase in GBS, even though only “a small portion” of people stricken with the virus actually wind up with the syndrome.

A study measuring whether there is any difference in the percentage of people who contract GBS but were never infected with the virus would seem appropriate.

Many detrimental effects to our health

The agency further noted that its scientists don’t really know how people contract GBS, so it’s difficult to believe that they would be able to accurately associate it with Zika. More likely, however, is that the instances of paralysis are being caused by the chemical-laced pesticides being sprayed to eradicate Zika-carrying mosquitoes.

As we reported in August, one of those – Naled, an organophosphate – is linked to some of the same health outcomes and symptoms as Zika.

CBS Miami further noted that in recent days planes have regularly sprayed Naled over homes, parks and businesses in the popular Miami neighborhood of Wynwood, which is an art-filled tourist spot. Since people are fearful of being bitten by a Zika-carrying mosquito, tourism has largely dried up, so the city has decided that the best solution for bringing tourists and their money back is to inundate the area with chemicals.

But the local CBS affiliate did not report anything about Naled, which has been identified as a cause of respiratory illnesses, hypotension, incontinence, gastrointestinal disorders, excessive sweating and blurring of vision. In severe instances, we noted last month, Naled can cause seizures and tremors, comas, paralysis, convulsions, cancers of the breast, esophagus, thyroid, kidneys and colon, as well as leukemia and even death.

Far worse for humans than Zika

Naled, which is manufactured by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, is listed as having numerous side effects, including both acute and chronic problems. That makes it much more dangerous than Zika, which normally has only mild effects. In fact, the CDC itself lists the most common symptoms as low-grade fever, muscle pain, headache, joint pain and red eyes.

Also, unlike Zika, Naled exposure does not translate into lifelong immunity; it can be a very dangerous chemical after just a single exposure, and over time, could became even more of a danger as it collects in a person’s body.

“The most common and worst application of Naled is aerial because its toxicity increases up to 20-fold this way and it can drift up to 1/2-mile,” noted Sadhu Govardhan of Govardhan Gardens in Puerto Rico, another region of the world where Zika is said to be a major threat.

In an interview with author and multiracial media mogul Sarah Ratliff, Govardhan also said that Naled has been known to be highly toxic to birds, fish and beneficial insects like bees. And unlike most other insecticides, Naled has been found to interfere with the photosynthesis of plants, thereby causing damage to our flora.

“In short,” Govardhan said, “the toxic, acute and chronic, long-term effects of Naled on humans and nature are horrendous–by far worse than the virus it is used to prevent.”

That’s not all. We also reported last month that a 2014 University of California study found that in major agricultural areas around the state where pesticides containing Naled are used, mothers have a 60 percent greater chance of having a child with autism.

“We should prove safety and not just say well because it hasn’t been proven detrimental it’s ok. That’s not good enough,” noted board-certified neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

DrPerlmutter.com[PDF]

Circa.com

SarahRatliff.com

CDC.gov

Miami.CBSLocal.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Medical Insanity? – Big Pharma Developing Baby Vaccines For Pregnant Women

Pregnancy
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
July 13, 2016

Vaccine industries have their sights set on a new market that they hope will someday be as massive as that created by the just-shy-of-obligatory childhood vaccine schedule: pregnant women.

The industry is working with the FDA to create new rules to test and develop vaccines designed to be given to pregnant women, in order to pass antibodies on to their unborn infants. The fact that this protection would only be short-term is not viewed as a problem.

Indeed, the industry is elated at the possibility to start vaccinating – via their mothers – babies too young to receive traditional vaccines.

Industry senses new opportunity

The concept of maternal vaccination targeting the infant immune system is not a new one. As far back as the 1960s, researchers were working on such a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) – a common and mostly harmless infection that nearly everyone gets by age 2, and that is usually only dangerous for premature infants or babies with other health problems. Companies had soured on the idea of developing an RSV vaccine for newborns after the original RSV vaccine was actually found to increase children’s vulnerability to the disease, and caused two deaths.

But companies also worried that vaccinating pregnant women would not go over well with the public.

“The companies had some concerns about the use of maternal vaccines in a litigious society,” said immunization researcher Ruth Karron of Johns Hopkins University.

In recent years, however, pregnant women seem to have become more accepting of getting vaccines.

“We really had a sea change in the U.S. in terms of pregnant women getting the flu vaccine,” said Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The industry traces the start of this trend to the 2009 swine flu pandemic, and to later vaccination campaigns during pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks.

In spite of CDC recommendations, most vaccines – including flu and Tdap vaccines – have not been proven safe for pregnant women. Just take a look at the FDA package inserts.

FDA colluding with shady research

The industry is looking to change that, by lobbying the FDA for a change in regulations that have made it difficult to test drugs on pregnant women.

“We are open to discussing alternative trial designs and alternative endpoints,” said Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review.

Now major vaccine companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax and Pfizer are working on various maternal vaccines, including for RSV and for Group B Strep (GBS). They hope that these vaccines will someday be administered routinely during pregnancy.

Research for a GBS vaccine has posed problems, since pregnant women in the United States are regularly given antibiotics if they test positive for GBS – even though research has shown that this practice contributes to antibiotic resistance, may harm children’s developing microbiomes, and provides little or no health benefit to the babies it is meant to help. This means that there isn’t much of a population to test a GBS vaccine on.

So, GlaxoSmithKline is instead carrying out trials on women in sub-Saharan Africa. The FDA has promised to accept the results, even though the followup methodology has been blasted as flawed.

“Many of [these women] don’t deliver in a hospital,” said Laura Riley, vice chair of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital. “You can’t just go vaccinating people and not know the outcome.”

While pregnant women have a strong and understandable desire to protect their infants, the evidence still shows that the single best way to protect a child from disease is to breastfeed (or to feed pumped breast milk out of a bottle). Breast milk contains antibodies, immune factors, enzymes and white blood cells that help a child fight off infection. Breastfeeding is even linked to lower lifetime rates of non-infectious diseases, including leukemia and diabetes.

Of course, a mother should be sure to keep her own immune system in top shape to provide maximum protection through her milk. One way to support whole-body health is by consuming superfoods such as spirulina.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com