Things I learned This Week About Ebola, and the Use of Untrialed Experimental Vaccines

NEWS ITEMS:

People who contract Ebola in some areas of Congo, have one thing "in common": local hospitals, which may not be correctly following recommended hygiene protocols. NPR reports:

" They had all recently visited a health clinic for treatment for some other disease such as a respiratory infection or malaria. They would say, 'I went to the hospital. They treated me. I got clear [of that illness]. And then a few days after, I start having fevers.' " Fevers that were the first of signs of Ebola. The surge of confirmed cases in Katwa and Butembo – 307 and rising — is now the largest flare-up during the course of this outbreak, which has infected nearly 900 people since August. And WHO officials estimate that in about one-fifth of these recent cases, the person contracted Ebola at health care facilities." 

One of the saddest stories I've read about this: a woman who never even knew she had had Ebola, had a relapse more than a year later and transmitted it to several family members. Although this was known in 2015, it was not publicized until this year. WJLA published the AP report:

 "A Liberian woman who probably caught Ebola in 2014 may have infected three relatives a year after she first fell sick, doctors reported... The unusual cluster of cases in Liberia was identified after the woman's 15-year-old son was diagnosed with Ebola in November 2015. Scientists then tested the rest of his family: the woman, her husband and their three younger sons. The 15-year-old died a few days later. The father and an 8-year-old boy were positive for Ebola, but both recovered. The couple's 5-year-old son wasn't infected.
"Doctors found Ebola antibodies in the mother, her breast milk and her 2-month-old baby, suggesting a previous infection and the possibility she passed on protection to her infant son through breastfeeding.
"Researchers reported genetic similarities between the viruses taken from the father, the two boys and the strain circulating during the 2014-15 outbreak across Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, which ultimately killed more than 11,000 people in the biggest Ebola epidemic in history.
"Scientists discovered the woman had cared for her brother in July 2014, who died after suffering Ebola-like symptoms but before being tested for the disease. The woman later experienced a similar illness, but never sought care."

Perhaps knowing this danger, one of the CDC's Ebola experts took special effort to make sure no one else was infected when an American Ebola survivor was giving birth, as reported by STAT News in an article about a retiring virologist:

" If [Dr Pierre] Rollin was good with viruses, he was equally as good with people. Damon, his former CDC boss, recalled that when one of the nurses from Dallas who had been infected with Ebola in 2014 gave birth well after she had recovered from the virus, there were still niggling concerns about whether she could infect others. So Rollin flew out to be on site, just in case."

Ebola survivors, it turns out, can transmit the disease to others for up to two years - and can be sexually transmitted by females as well as males.  Debora MacKenzie at The New Scientist reported:

" The Ebola virus can persist in a man’s semen for much longer than we thought. A man in Guinea who survived Ebola in 2014 is now known to have carried it for at least 531 days. Earlier this year, he transmitted the virus sexually, causing it to spread to at least 10 people, and killing 8 of them. .... "In January, 470 days after he initially fell ill, this man had sex with the woman who became the first known case in this year’s outbreak. She then spread the virus to nine more people, one of whom carried it to Liberia."

 The CDC has recommended that male survivors of Ebola use condoms "indefinitely", but this suggests that both sexes risk infecting their partners.

Survivors who had latent, non-fatal, or mild infections and recovered but remained infectious, resulting in transmission of the disease, are now being recognized as the source of new outbreaks. CIDRAP , The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. reports that a new outbreak in the town of Beni, Congo, is likely due to survivor transmission:

"The group conducted the study in June and July of 2017, enrolling 237 participants ... They found that illnesses were more widespread than the 11 cases originally reported from the area, which includes a 2-year-old boy thought have been the first case and to have been exposed to the virus by a bat.

"Researchers identified two more probable deaths and eight previously unrecognized IgG-positive survivors, including one person who had mild illness and another who was asymptomatic, for a case fatality of 55.6% for adults, much lower than originally reported 100%."

Victims of Ebola who die, are not to be embalmed, according to CDC guidelines, and if buried, must have a "closed casket" service - the body will not be available for viewing. The CDC recommends cremation for those who die of Ebola, but says if they are to be buried, funeral home personnel must not even open the body bag that the remains arrive in, and must transfer it to a casket which is then hermetically sealed.  More information is available at "The CDC’s “Guidance for Safe Handling of Human Remains of Ebola Patients in U. S. Hospitals and Mortuaries”

It is not yet known whether other mammals such as dogs and cats can contract or carry Ebola. Everyday Health reports:

"“At this time, there is no evidence that dogs or cats can carry Ebola nor are they at risk for contracting Ebola in the United States,” says Angela Vassallo, PMH, MS, director of infection prevention and epidemiology at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica. ....The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also stated that there were no cases of dogs or cats getting sick from Ebola, nor of these pets spreading Ebola to others.

 ...."Julio Lopez, DVM, of Studio City Animal Hospital in Los Angeles, says that what little we know about Ebola and dogs comes from a single study. Published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in 2005, after an Ebola outbreak in Gabon, the study included data on blood tests of 439 dogs, some from Ebola-affected villages. “Dogs consuming infected meat developed antibodies against the Ebola virus, but did not show signs of sickness,” says Dr. Lopez. “None of the dogs in this study died from this disease.” Researchers found no cases of dogs passing on Ebola, neither to animals nor people.

..."While there are no known cases of an infected pet transmitting Ebola to a person, pets can infect people with other more common zoonotic diseases. “Leptospirosis, hookworms and roundworms, and toxoplasmosis are a few common examples,” says Lopez.  ... "We can also transmit diseases to our pets. In 2009, a cat and some ferrets contracted H1N1, commonly called the swine flu, from their owners,” Lopez says." 

Additional info about animals and Ebola in this Time article (from 2014 so perhaps out of date). 

Finally, as we all know, researchers are working ceaselessly to develop a vaccine for Ebola. With the latest outbreak, companies are setting up clinical trials of new medicines in-country, often at great risk from violence in the area.  But of interest was this article about giving the vaccine to young children without benefit of any clinical trial to determine its safety for that age group.
As reported by StatNews, in an article that could have been headlined 'Doctors Without Borders Supports Giving Untrialed Experimental Vaccines To Pregnant Women and Babies En Masse'

"Women who are pregnant and lactating, as well as children under the age of 1, will be offered access to an experimental Ebola vaccine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, officials said Wednesday, marking the reversal of a controversial policy that had drawn fire from public health experts. .... 

"Proponents of the earlier policy argued that the vaccine, which goes by the provisional name V920, might harm the fetus or trigger a miscarriage. They noted that there were no data to show the vaccine was safe to use in this very vulnerable population.

"But critics countered that unless the vaccine is used in pregnant women there would never be data to determine whether it was safe. And they noted that while there may be some risk involved in vaccinating pregnant and lactating women, the risk to them from Ebola is greater. ....

"The decision to exclude lactating women stemmed from concerns the vaccine viruses might be transmitted via breast milk. Children under the age of 1 were excluded from vaccination because the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in this group hasn’t been tested. (An earlier decision to lower the threshold for those eligible for vaccination from 6 years old to 12 months old was made without the benefit of a clinical trial.)

"...As of Tuesday nearly 82,000 people in North Kivu and Ituri — the provinces where the outbreak is occurring — have been vaccinated. The vaccine, which has yet to be licensed, is being developed by Merck.

"Carleigh Krubiner, a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, welcomed the news. Krubiner said the policy reversal will not only offer pregnant women the protection of the vaccine, but also provide a critical chance to see how the vaccine works in these women. That knowledge will be of benefit in future outbreaks, she said. ...

"The decision was also applauded by Doctors Without Borders, which had opposed the exclusion of pregnant women. Dr. Séverine Caluwaerts, a Belgian gynecologist who volunteers with MSF —the acronym is based on the organization’s name in French — said in reality some pregnant women have already received the vaccine, because they were vaccinated before they knew they were pregnant. MSF has heard reports of at least 20 such cases in this outbreak, Caluwaerts said."

"Reluctance to offer the vaccine to pregnant and lactating women is based on the fact it is a live-virus vaccine. The virus it contains is not Ebola; it is a livestock virus called vesicular stomatitis virus that can infect, but does not sicken people. A key protein from the Ebola virus has been fused to the VSV virus, which then prompts the immune system to develop a protective response to Ebola. Traditionally there has been concern about using live-virus vaccines in pregnant women.

"It was not immediately clear whether all children — even newborns — could be vaccinated. Nor is it clear how the WHO feels about this part of the decision.... The WHO did not immediately respond to a request for an interview." 

The article continues with information about other vaccines that do not use live viruses and are being recommended for trials.

Are the families - husbands and fathers as well as women and mothers - being made fully aware of the risks of these untrialed, experimental vaccines?  What kind of responsibility will these organizations bear who made the "outcry" demanding use of the experimental vaccines on vulnerable people?

The global health organizations are using the third world as their unregulated playground, taking advantage of people with no experience to use as human guinea pigs for testing their science-fair projects. Who is going to hold them to account when they make a fatal error?  Or half a million fatal errors?

Is This Why The Unwarranted Hoopla Over Zika? FDA Approves Release of GMO Mosquitos Into the US

In addition to the $1.5 Billion in Scam Dollars the United Nations is holding out their hands for, of course.

The Obama Administration, the UN and the CDC have been eagerly pushing Zika-infected people across US borders as though the brief cold-like illness is not dangerous. Which, scientifically, it isn't. It has not been proven to cause any birth defects. It has not even been "associated with" any microcephaly outside of Brazil  - and Brazil is known to have an extremely high rate of babies born with microcephaly, due to several known, and a number of scientifically suspected causes - none of which are Zika.

From the article in The Guardian:

"A release of genetically engineered mosquitoes that it is hoped could help combat the spread of the Zika virus has been approved in Florida by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"Oxitec, a spinoff from a project at Oxford University, was recently purchased by Intrexon, the corporation that produces non-browning “Arctic” apples and fast-fattening “AquaBounty” salmon. The FDA announcement nearly clears the way for it to release the mosquitoes in an experimental trial on Key Haven, a small island in the Florida Keys. One obstacle remains, however: the voters of Monroe County.

"In November, roughly 52,000 voters will decide if they want the trial to go forward. The referendum will not be legally binding, but most members of the elected Florida Keys mosquito control board have said they will abide by voters’ wishes. The trial has been hotly contested, with many residents vocally opposed to the mosquitoes’ release."

and:

"Whether Keys voters approve the mosquito, however, may eventually prove irrelevant. Oxitec is releasing the insects on a trial basis in Panama, Brazil and the Cayman Islands, and has applied for experimental release permits in Sri Lanka and India.

"Oxitec is developing another species of mosquito, the Aedes albopictus, Parry said. Like Aedes aegypti, it is capable of transmitting zika, dengue fever and chikungunya."

Meanwhile, there is a mounting and visible lack of evidence that Zika causes anything worse than the mild, brief illness it has been for 60 years.

The only sure thing is that the US government and the CDC were not and still are not worried about the emergence of a polio-related illness last summer called " enterovirus D-68 " that left more than 100 American children paralyzed, children who had been healthy a week earlier.

Zika Virus Claims Don't Pan Out: What Is Really Going On?

Is all of the Zika Virus hysteria just a marketing campaign to sell millions of new vaccines? It is looking more like a false alarm as every week goes by.

As weeks pass,  excess microcephaly cases have not appeared in other countries with Zika Virus outbreaks. If the hypothesis were correct, Columbia should be seeing hundreds of cases by now - but so far they are still within the usual range, according to PAHO WHO's latest update on July 7th.

In Brazil itself, the original thousands of cases turn out not to be associated with Zika after all.

So far, only 255 cases have been confirmed with laboratory data. An additional 1401 cases are cited as associated (but without any lab testing to confirm). A whopping 7,000 microcephaly cases in Brazil are confirmed to be due to other causes - in many cases unknown.

There is no commercial test for Zika, and Zika looks like its close relative Dengue in blood antibody tests, Only a few government labs can review blood samples, so "getting results takes weeks".

To put this in perspective, approximately 25,000 babies in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly every year. Some of these babies will grow and develop normally (nearly 90% of those with mild microcephaly will not have any deficits), and some babies born with normal sized heads will become microcephalic after injury or illness. Genetics also play a strong role. And much of the time, the cause remains unknown. Even the criteria for measuring microcephaly varies.

Yet the media campaign trundles on, and even has a new "ZikaCommunicationNetwork" website with "curated resources" for professional health workers that admits the unknowns:

"... to help health and development professionals minimize the spread of Zika and related negative pregnancy outcomes using four key strategies:

*Social behavior change communication (SBCC)
*Vector control
*Delivery of maternal and child health and family planning services
*Research and development

There are many unknowns about the effects of Zika on pregnancy outcomes. We do not know, if a pregnant woman is exposed to Zika, how likely she is to actually contract the virus. We do not know, if a pregnant woman is infected with Zika, how likely she is to pass it on to her fetus. And we do not know, if her fetus is infected, whether, or at what point in the pregnancy, the infection will result in birth defects."   

But here is the marketing part that gets used to fool the public:

"One thing we do know is that a couple of weeks ago, a baby girl was born in the U.S. with Zika and severe microcephaly..."

So there is the narrative, in which the South American mother deliberately traveled to the US after learning her baby was microcephalic and Zika-positive, is used as a trigger to blot out the lack of scientific evidence, to make us imagine this is a danger everywhere, and to persuade us that all cases of Zika result in severe brain defects.   Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has jumped at the chance to pressure Brazil and other Catholic countries to legalize child sacrifice, and is once again pushing their money-making agenda: the UNFPA asking for $10 Million from the US and other governments.

In the past few weeks, I've noticed that the word "microcephaly" is no longer being highlighted, there is a sort of pretense that Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) was the "real" problem all along, and babies born to women who had Zika Virus are said to have something undefined called "Congenital syndrome associated with Zika virus infection". Those are serious conditions, and it is important to be vigilant, but are these just more guesswork, without scientific underpinnings?  Only time will tell.

The troublesome things are not only that something is causing an increase in microcephaly - but  that Brazil's rate of microcephaly was already high.  Investigation of the true cause is being ignored.  Or is it? 

No big conspiracy, but epidemiological reality, according to medical investigators: nearly always, the cause of outbreak clusters is never discovered. Over time, myths and educated guesses fill in the vacuum as a substitute for real knowledge. That is the assessment of experts studying an ongoing epidemic of a similar, fatal birth defect called "anencephaly" in the Yakima Valley, Washington State:

"...investigating a birth-defects cluster is difficult, and often futile. It’s challenging to collect the data and even tougher to prove a cause, said Sever, the retired CDC birth-defects expert who lives in Seattle. “The problem with birth defects is that, with very few exceptions, there are no smoking guns,” said Sever."

In Brazil, some researchers say the incidence of microcephaly started climbing long before Zika made its appearance:

"Since 2012, Mattos’s team found, a strikingly large number of babies—4 percent to 8 percent—appeared to have microcephaly, according to the broadest definitions of the term. Additionally, the number of babies affected peaked in 2014, before Zika had been detected in Brazil.

"Another study of roughly 1,000 babies born in eight states in Brazil from July to December 2007 found the prevalence of microcephaly to be 2.8 percent. " 

There's also disagreement about what criteria to use in diagnosis, which can lead to disparate reporting. A 2009 study of the accuracy of reporting birth defects in Brazil found that microcephaly was under-reported by 75%. 

In addition to genetic conditions, malnutrition, use of alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, there are viruses that have long been known to contribute to microcephaly in babies. These include rubella - which both the USA and Brazil vaccinate against - and two other infections that have high rates in both the US and Brazil: Congenital toxoplasmosis, and Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV).

The CDC has this to say about CMV:

"In the United States, nearly one in three children are already infected with CMV by age 5 years. Over half of adults by age 40 have been infected with CMV. Once CMV is in a person's body, it stays there for life and can reactivate. Most people infected with CMV show no signs or symptoms. However, CMV infection can cause serious health problems for people with weakened immune systems, as well as babies infected with the virus before they are born (congenital CMV).

"A 2009 study in Brazil found that fully 26.4% of all infants with congenital CMV were also microcephalic (22 out of 87). In this study, 1.8% of all babies were infected with CMV through their mothers.(confirmed in 87 out of 8047 infants).   55.2% of all mothers who had CMV also had other chronic conditions "

What is the CDC's recommendation to protect American mothers from CMV while pregnant? Is it for Congress to allocate a billion dollars for research? Is it to bring the mothers to the best research hospitals?  Nope. It is that "Regular hand washing, particularly after changing diapers, is a commonly recommended step to decrease the spread of infections, and may reduce exposures to CMV. "

The NIH goes further:  "Avoid kissing children under the age of 6 on the mouth or cheek.
Do not share food, drinks, or eating utensils with young children.  Pregnant women working in a day care center should work with children older than age 2½."

Here's the NIH's info on just how dangerous CMV is:

"Congenital CMV infection is the most common intrauterine infection in the United States with direct annual costs of over one billion dollars. The live birth prevalence of congenital CMV infection in the developed world is 0.6–0.7% . Of those infected, 10% are symptomatic as neonates  with the majority surviving the initial infection; however, greater than 90% develop long-term neurological [problems] including:
    .....hearing loss (unilateral and bilateral), mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and impaired vision..... Of the remaining 90% of congenital CMV infections, approximately 10–15% will later develop long-term neurological [problems]. 

Congenital CMV infection leads to an estimated 8000 cases of permanent neurologic disability annually. There are more cases of permanent disability due to congenital CMV than other, better 
known, congenital conditions such as Downs syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome and spina bifida."

So where's the big push to develop a vaccine for CMV?

Then there's Toxoplasmosis, a leading cause of microcephaly, hydrocephalus, vision loss, and other birth defects.  For 40+ years, on our first pre-natal visit, the doctor has said "don't empty the cat's litter box while pregnant. Get someone else to do that until the baby is born."  And that was that. No tests for it, no cautions, no offers of treatment. But as it turns out, Toxoplasmosis is very dangerous indeed.  An article at the NIH reports that the parasitic disease is the second leading cause of death from contaminated foods (the 4th leading cause of hospitalizations from same) in the USA.  They estimate that a million Americans are infected each year.

Studies show that the prevalence and virulence of the disease in Brazil is much worse.  One study found that as many as 14 babies out of every thousand are born with congenital toxoplasmosis, due to a 50% to 80% prevalence of infection among pregnant women.  In Guatemala, 11 babies of every thousand are affected, and in Mexico, as many as 3.4 per 100!

The NIH reports that a human vaccine has not been pursued. But promising attempts even to vaccinate *cats* have been discontinued due to lack of interest.

Those are only two out of a dozen preventable conditions that have long been known to cause much higher rates of microcephaly, vision and hearing loss, and other disabling birth defects currently being attributed to Zika Virus without any evidence. But no marketing campaign for them?

We know that it takes years or decades to ascertain the effects of emerging diseases. We know that the causes of sudden clusters are rarely ever discovered - unless the cause is a medicine or other controlled, artificial introduction to the environment.  So why the pretenses and misleading claims about Zika?

A few tidbits that may shed light:

Time Magazine has reported that for-profit companies are already at work "tweaking a vaccine that was originally developed for West Nile virus and they expect to launch a safety trial for it in September."   That was fast!

In blood tests, Zika Virus looks almost identical to Dengue Fever, and is transmitted by the same mosquito. The viruses are closely related. Coincidentally, several new Dengue vaccines are either already in large-scale trials or nearing the point. The Philippines plan to vaccinate 1 million children this year. Brazil is one of the countries introducing the vaccine this year as well. All of the UN/World Bank/WHO/Planned Parenthood groups have mobilized their fundraising arms to draw in financing for these new vaccine programs.

The Science Isn't Settled on the Zika Marketing Campaign Yet

There's another new report out that firmly points to a chemical mosquito control program as the specific cause of Brazil's microcephaly increase.

This year's terrifying biological epidemic is Zika - the one our government refuses to quarantine for, despite CDC projections that travelers bringing it here will spread it to mosquitoes, causing it to get into the US ecosystem where the virus will become a constant infection risk for Americans - the one our President and much of Congress want to spend a billion dollars on while blithely inviting "undocumented" "migrants" from countries where it is endemic.

During the Ebola outbreak, the US Government opposed testing or quarantine for travelers (or their pets) from nations with Ebola outbreaks, while agressively quarantining all troops who returned from helping with the outbreaks.

In the Zika epidemic, the US government is allowing human carriers unfettered entrance - and these human carriers have infected others while in the United States - but monkeys and apes are subject to 31 days of quarantine.

The first suggestion that Zika causes microcephaly originated innocently enough, from educated guesses by a few Brazilian doctors. But they had no scientific evidence to confirm it. And despite media reports and claims otherwise, they still don't.

The data is not conforming to the narrative.

In fact, the biggest question on everyone's mind is: why aren't other countries with active Zika outbreaks experiencing a rise in microcephaly?

Sharyl Attkisson reports, in her excellent June 23rd overview, on many of the inconsistencies between the "official" narrative, and the facts about Microcephaly and Zika Virus: "35 Facts (and Controversies) About Zika", notes two indicators that other factors are in play: Brazil's decision to inject all pregnant women with the Tdap vaccine in late 2014; and Brazil's use of Pyriproxyfen in drinking water supplies in the areas with the highest prevalence of microcephaly.

It's the Pyriproxyfen that looks most likely.

Attkisson references the February 2016 report by Argentinian Pediatrician Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, who points directly at contaminated water supplies:

"Since the second half of 2014, the Brazilian Ministry of Health(5) stopped using temephos (an organophosphate agrotoxic to which Aedes larvae became resistant) as larvicide, [and then began using] ....the poison Pyroproxyfen, commercially known as Sumilarv and manufactured by Sumimoto Chemical, a Japanese company associated to or subsidiary of Monsanto in Latin America (1,5).

"Pyroproxyfen is applied directly by the Brazilian Ministry of Health on drinking-water reservoirs used by the people of Pernambuco, where the proliferation of the Aedes mosquito is very high (a situation similar to the Pacific Islands).(6) This poison, recommended by the WHO, is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the
development process larva-pupa-adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and causing their death or incapacity. .... Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added pyriproxyfen to drinking water is not a coincidence, ..."

Since then, other reports emerge to challenge the Zika Marketing Campaign's claims, and to demand a scientific look at the increasingly mounting evidence for some other cause of Brazil's Microcephaly epidemic.

Here's the newest one.  A June 22, 2016 report * from the New England Complex Systems Insitute states outright that in Columbia, which has a very high rate of Zika:

"The total number of pregnancies with Zika infections is much larger, with 11,944 cases with Zika symptoms being observed in clinical settings. No cases of microcephaly occurred in all of these 12,000 pregnancies."

They go on to conclude that:

"Combining the symptomless and symptomatic individuals we would expect 5 X 6.5 = 33 times as many cases as the cohort, i.e. 22 and 37 cases in the two exposure models. This would seem to rule out Zika as a cause of microcephaly.

"We can, however, consider the alternative that Zika is not the cause of microcephaly." ... "An alternative cause of microcephaly in Brazil could be the pesticide pyriproxyfen, which is cross-reactive with retinoic acid, which causes microcephaly, and is being used in drinking water. "

The NECSI published a study in April 2016 which establishes a strong link between microcephaly and Pyriproxyfen:

"Here we consider the alternative that the insecticide pyriproxyfen, used in Brazilian drinking water for mosquito control, may actually be the cause. Pyriproxifen is an analog of juvenile hormone, which corresponds in mammals to regulatory molecules including retinoic acid, a vitamin A metabolite, with which it has cross-reactivity and whose application during development causes microcephaly.

Methoprene, another juvenile hormone analog approved as an insecticide has metabolites that bind to the retinoid X receptor, and causes developmental disorders in mammals. Isotretinoin is another example of a retinoid causing microcephaly in human babies via activation of the retinoid X receptor.

Moreover, tests of pyriproxyfen by the manufacturer, Sumitomo, widely quoted as giving no evidence for developmental toxicity, actually found some evidence for such an effect, including low brain mass and arhinencephaly—incomplete formation of the anterior cerebral hemispheres—in rat pups.

Finally, the pyriproxyfen use in Brazil is unprecedented—it has never before been applied to a water supply on such a scale. Claims that it is not being used in Recife, the epicenter of microcephaly cases, do not distinguish the metropolitan area of Recife, where it is widely used, and the municipality, where it is not. Given this combination of information we strongly recommend that the use of pyriproxyfen in Brazil be suspended pending further investigation. "

This corresponds with the earlier concerns expressed by Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez.

The second possibility being put forward for the high and sudden increase in Microcephaly in Brazil alone is a faulty vaccine:  Around the same time that Brazil changed larvacides, they also mandated giving the Tdap vaccine to all pregnant women:
" A dose of Tdap for pregnant women (administered during each pregnancy between 27 through 36 weeks gestation and as early as 20 weeks gestation in hard-to-reach areas) was implemented in 2014."

"Tdap" stands for Tetanus, Diptheria, and Pertussis. The Tdap vaccine has been given to pregnant women in the USA for several years and is considered safe for both mother and child.  Neonatal Tetanus will directly cause microcephaly in infants who survive, and it kills most, so Brazil is trying to solve a serious and very real health problem with these vaccines.

But because it is a new program, used in rural areas of Brazil that correspond directly with the locations of the microcephaly increase, this needs to be examined.  There is a case report of an infant who developed microcephaly after her first DPT booster.  Is it possible that the vaccines - or some of them - were faulty in some way, or given inappropriately?  Are the vaccines that are safe for American women still safe for women whose disease exposure history is completely different?

Finally, could some of the "Zika Linked" microcephaly incidents be cases of mistaken identity?

The more significant health crisis, Dengue Fever, is rampant in Brazil. USA Today reports

"Dengue is spread by the same mosquito species as Zika, and the two viruses are so similar that blood tests sometimes can't tell the two apart.

"When people are infected with dengue, or any virus, the immune system releases key proteins called antibodies to neutralize the invaders. Authors of a study published Thursday in Nature found that two of the antibodies the body makes to fight dengue also prevent Zika infections."

So why is the Official Narrative all about Zika,  and the drive to certainty, in denial of the science?

We know that the global elites and the US government will lie to us, and will eagerly grab any crisis to push through their objectives, no matter how unsafe. Did Zika look like the perfect opportunity to achieve another UN Millennium Development Goal?

You may have noticed a subtle change in the language TPTB are using now: they no longer talk about babies born with microcephaly. Instead, the phrasing is "Zika babies could appear normal" and counts every baby, even those born healthy, as "Zika-affected births" or "poor birth outcomes". The numbers even include babies voluntarily killed by abortion, as well as miscarriages which could be related to other causes. Despite the foreign status of all the US-located births of babies whose mothers had Zika, the headlines claim "Zika: 7 US Babies Born With Birth Defects". None of these women from other countries contracted Zika in the US.

The US & Brazil have been actively cooperating in development of a Dengue vaccine, with Brazil beginning clinical trials in 2013 and approving marketing of a larger test in December 2015.

Is Zika being built up with other causes of microcephaly ignored, in an effort to increase funding (and tangentally to force abortion and birth control on devout Catholic nations)?

As Newsweek so calmly put it:

"Speaking of prophylactics—perhaps the real panacea would be a vaccine, distributed to every citizen of every troubled country. "  

Golly. I wonder who they can get to pay for all of that?


*This week's update to the NECSI report noted Columbia has added 5 cases of Zika-associated microcephaly to the previous 6, bringing their total to 11 cases (in over 60,000 Zika-infected pregnant women) from Jan 1 through June 18th. While researchers noted this as a slight increase, it is still far below the more than 200 that would be expected if Zika were truly the cause of microcephaly:

"Using an estimated rate of microcephaly induced by Zika of 1 in 100 pregnancies exposed in the first trimester, or alternatively 0.5 in 100 of all pregnancies exposed in the first and second trimester [5], there should be 200 microcephaly cases arising from Zika exposure in Colombia of pregnancies infected until March 28. Zika infections
rose rapidly starting in October 2015 and peaked at the beginning of February. If Zika is the cause of microcephaly, we expect the number of reported cases to increase to more than 10 per week over upcoming weeks.

"These Zika induced cases should be in addition to the background rate of 2 in 10,000 births [6], which is consistent with the 6 or 7 cases reported from Colombia till this week.

"The 5 additional cases reported this week are therefore the first indication that Zika is causing microcephaly in Colombia, while earlier reported cases are consistent with random co-occurrence of microcephaly and Zika infections. Confirmation will depend on reports in upcoming weeks."