This is an article that explains a great deal---but, with
apologies, it involves a line of reasoning, in order to reach a
conclusion. That means some readers (not my regular readers) may find
it odd. Some readers with short attention spans may suddenly want to
switch to a wrestling show or a shopping network. To them I say: give
this a try; it does have a payoff; it has its own kind of shock and
surprise; explosions do go off in the mind; it is like a ten-car pile-up
on the interstate in the fog, late at night; and there is a very nasty
plot.
Out of nowhere, a month ago, we were told there was an outbreak of
microcephaly in Brazil: over 4,000 cases of babies born with small heads
and brain impairment.
The Brazilian researchers then went in and took a closer look at that
figure. They walked it back and said there were, at best, only 404
confirmed cases of microcephaly.
Going from 4,000 cases to 404 cases was a revelation. It means
there is no reason to claim, so far, that there is an epidemic of microcephaly.
Then, another stunner. Of the 404 cases, only 17 "had a relationship
with the Zika virus." Therefore, obviously, there was no
Zika-causing-microcephaly story, either.
Even in those 17 cases, the mere presence of the Zika virus was no
evidence the virus was causing microcephaly in 17 babies. A virus has
to be more than "present." It has to be there in huge numbers in an
individual human. And the Brazilian researchers haven't provided any
evidence that Zika was present in huge numbers in any of the 17 babies.
There is more. The whole effort of the researchers was to show, if
possible, that Zika was present in all the 404 microcephaly cases. You
see, they were doing preliminary work. They were looking for the cause
of microcephaly. And when you're on that kind of hunt, you're trying to
find some factor
that is present in most or all cases. Otherwise, it's
not the cause.
The Zika hunting expedition failed miserably. The researchers actually showed that Zika
wasn't the cause.
Let me put it to you this way. 400 tourists staying a hotel fall ill with the same symptoms. Researchers try to find
the
cause. They propose, as a preliminary idea, that the tourists all ate
apple sauce. So they interview the sick tourists, they examine the
contents of their stomachs, they talk to kitchen workers---and they
discover only 17 of the 400 tourists ate apple sauce. Conclusion?
Apple sauce is not the cause of the illness. There is no reason to
claim it's the cause in the 17 people who ate it, either. Apple sauce,
as an explanation, is a complete dud.
All right. So we have no evidence that there is a widespread epidemic
of microcephaly. And for those cases that do exist, we have no
evidence, so far, that Zika virus is the cause.
Given all this, a few new questions naturally arise. How did the notion
that Zika virus might be the cause suddenly appear in the first place?
And who started the story that there was an epidemic of microcephaly?
Let me take up that second question. Apparently, several doctors at two
or three hospitals in Brazil noticed more babies with microcephaly than
usual. Their report went to someone at the Brazilian health
authority. And then a call went out all over the country asking for
reports of cases of microcephaly. Those reports came in. They weren't
necessarily accurate. When the numbers were added up, they came to more
than 4000.
Then, researchers began to sift through 3,670 of those reports to see
what was actually happening---and so far, they see only 404 cases of
microcephaly.
Now let's look at the first question: who proposed the apple sauce? Who
proposed the idea that Zika, a virus known about since 1947, a virus
which had never been known to cause more than mild transient illness, a
virus surely present in humans all over the planet, was now suddenly
wreaking great devastation in babies---deformity, brain damage? Who
made that very strange leap?
Here is a clue.
This is a quote from a World Health Organization press release, dated January 28, 2016:
"WHO
to convene an International Health Regulations Emergency Committee on
Zika virus and observed increase in neurological disorders and neonatal
malformations":
"In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus disease.
Since then, the disease has spread within Brazil and to 24 other
countries in the region."
This is clearly a deception. The
first
Zika case in Brazil, for a virus that's been known about since 1947?
In India, Zika has been known about ("Zika Fever") for a long, long
time. Discovering "the first" Zika case in Brazil has some special
meaning? As I stated above, it's well known that the virus causes only
mild illness and goes away in a short time. So why would anyone care
about a Zika case in Brazil? As for the WHO assertion that Zika has
subsequently spread (like an epidemic) throughout Brazil and 24 other
countries, this is absurd. It would be like saying, "We discovered a
person driving a Volkswagen in Brazil. Since then, the occurrence of
people driving Volkswagens had spread across Brazil and 24 other
countries." No, the drivers and the Volkswagens were already there.
Why would researchers at WHO make this fundamental error? Why would they make this preposterous claim?
Part of the reason leads back to a preoccupation with (actually, an
obsession with) hunting for viruses. Hunting for them, finding them,
and then, based on no solid evidence, claiming they cause various
disease-conditions.
I'll continue with a further quote from the January 28 WHO media release:
"Arrival of the virus in some countries of the Americas, notably
Brazil, has been associated with a steep increase in the birth of babies
with abnormally small heads... A causal relationship between Zika virus
infection and birth defects and neurological syndromes has not been
established, but is strongly suspected."
Notice the use of the phrase, "associated with." This is not true, as
we've seen, because the Brazilian researchers have found the Zika virus
(or indirect evidence of it) in only 17 of the 404 confirmed cases of
microcephaly. There is no association. There is
disassociation.
Remember, in order to begin to say a particular virus is causing a
disease, you must find it in almost all, or all, cases of that
condition. What WHO is pointing to, re Zika, doesn't even begin to
approach this standard. And as you can see from the above quote, WHO
admits they have established no causal connection between Zika and
microcephaly.
Yet WHO has been spearheading the drive to blame Zika and, yes, invent
the idea that there is a "spreading epidemic" of Zika. Much of what
you're reading and seeing in the mainstream press about this "epidemic"
comes directly out of WHO press releases and director Margaret Chan's
remarks.
WHO is determined to fabricate a viral epidemic and its causal connection to microcephaly.
Here is the final quote I want to highlight from the January 28 WHO media release:
"WHO's Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO) has been working
closely with affected countries since May 2015. PAHO has mobilized staff
and members of the Global Outbreak and Response Network (GOARN) to
assist ministries of health in strengthening their abilities to detect
the arrival and circulation of Zika virus through laboratory testing and
rapid reporting. The aim has been to ensure accurate clinical diagnosis
and treatment for patients, to track the spread of the virus and the
mosquito that carries it, and to promote prevention, especially through
mosquito control."
Notice the date mentioned in the quote---May 2015. That's when "the
first case of Zika" was discovered in Brazil. WHO sent people to the
scene immediately. They sent their virus hunters from GOARN, which is
the WHO equivalent of the CDC's Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS).
The virus hunters. Show them a situation; they will find a virus and
make an warranted claim about it and push the story forward.
That's what they've done, against all the counter-evidence. They've
invented a epidemic that doesn't exist, blaming it on a virus that has
never caused serious illness, and they've connected that virus, with no
evidence, to microcephaly.
It would be like saying, "There was a 20-car crash on the interstate
last night, and three miles away, on a lonely road, a boy was walking
with his dog. The boy is the prime suspect. He is 'associated' with
the car crash. And then, on top of that absurdity, we discover that, on
the interstate, we can only find two cars that have collided, not 20."
But the biggest public-health agency in the world is sticking to its
story about the 20-car crash and its "association" with the boy walking
his dog.
This does not indicate a mere error. This indicates a fixation. "We
must find a virus and claim it is the cause." It also indicates an
intention to fabricate.
All right. We've now reached the end of the first part of my argument. Let's proceed and go to motive.
For that exposition, I rely on the very well-known consequences of WHO making its entirely unwarranted and bogus case:
an epidemic can be announced. They (WHO) can claim there is an epidemic caused by a spreading virus.
Follow me here. This is crucial. Merely saying there are some
microcephaly cases in Brazil, and they can come from many different
causes---since
any insult to the developing fetal brain can
bring about microcephaly---a toxic drug, a toxic pesticide, the pregnant
woman falls down a flight of stairs---
merely saying there are
some microcephaly cases in Brazil creates no appearance of a contagious
epidemic spreading around the world.
For WHO, that's a non-starter. It goes nowhere. But linking
microcephaly to a virus and then "discovering" the virus has "broken
out" of its "previous containment in Brazil" and is "traveling around
the world" and is "causing microcephaly"----now WHO is in business.
Constructing these several garish lies and hooking them together
achieves multiple objectives. The people at WHO may be crazy, but they
aren't stupid. They understand how much hay they can make through their
invention.
With the fairy tale about a galloping virus and its potential to create,
in any pregnant woman, brain damage to her developing baby, they have a
scary epidemic to run and manage and control. They have work, in the
same way a movie director has work with a good script that can sell vs.
one that won't. Their allies can rush to develop a (completely
unnecessary) vaccine. When the vaccine is ready (ready to make large
profits), WHO can run that operation, too, by issuing all sorts of
alerts about the need to get vaccinated. WHO can also issue "health
directives" about "prevention" to every national government on Earth,
thus cementing its superior role as a leading planetary command-post.
No comments:
Post a Comment