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