The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Wednesday confirmed that the Zika virus causes fetal defects, including microcephaly, the condition that causes infants to be born with abnormally small brains and deformed heads.
My understanding is that it's not the virus. But the chemicals from an associated Bill Gates/Monsanto corporation that there putting in the water to kill these Mosquitos.
Thanks for pointing out the link to climate change. Emergent pathogens, such as Zika, Dengue, West Nile and the like are serious business. It does not take much for them to get a foothold in new areas. Karma is passing out blankets to 'murcans, much like the colonists passed them out to the indigenous peoples of this continent...
I accept that the Zika virus causes birth defects, BUT...
Does the Zika virus work in malevolent synergy with Monsanto's pesticide chemical which was dumped into the local water in many cases?
Does it work in synergy with glyphosate which has been shown to cause microcephaly on its own in chicken embryos and in frog embryos, and which was all over the place in Brazil at this time?
Does it work in synergy with a certain multiple vaccine that was administered to great numbers of Brazilian women about the time of the outbreak?
No, I don't trust the CDC to expose some closed-mouth company's billion dollar dirty little secrets.
The Zika virus as been known for almost 70 years now and millions of people world-wide have been infected with it. Why, all of a sudden, is there this outbreak of microcephaly? What has changed?
What is really sad is that we can no longer trust these government agencies. NIST, CDC, EPA, and all of the rest have all become so politicized that, even if they are correct in some cases, they have lost all reasonable credibility. This is probably the greatest tragedy of our current generation. Rather than having unbiased science, everything that government agencies do must pass multiple political tests or the agency will be punished by selective defunding, ridicule, and other tactics.
While there is no doubt that there is a correlation between being infected with the Zika virus and the occurrence of microcephaly, is the virus really the root cause? Could the prevalent use of powerful pesticides (many of which are banned in the US) that are common in the same areas where the Zika virus is found, be a contributing factor to this new phenomenon? We will probably never know because the pesticide lobby would never allow the CDC to draw such a conclusion.
Do you know what "groundless speculation" is?
Why do you cognitively NEED the cause of the microcephaly to be pesticides when there are far more straightforward explanations?
If the mosquito control pesticides were the problem, should we not have seen lots of microcephaly cases going way back when Zika was still only found a small area of Africa?
How is your dysfunctional cognitive NEED for it to be due to big, bad chemical companies and these evil government agencies (which you present as "not credible" based on zero evidence) any different than the right-winger's dysfunctional cognitive NEED for global warming to a hoax perpetrated by these same evil "socialistic" government agencies? If you are correct, then shouldn't the global warming-hoax conspiratorialists be correct also?
Speculation is speculation - one conjecture is exactly as correct as another.
Yes, I have blind adherence to the authority of science and the scientific method - the only known method that separates objective truth from subjective speculation. Take your backward superstition - which has caused much human suffering throughout history, and go away.
Give up - its hopeless. The internet could have been such an important tool for the spread of science to the general public, but instead, under capitalist commercial interests, it has become a mill for fantastical mumbo-jumbo - and the so-called "left" (pseudo-left) is the source of most of it.
The point is that politics, not science, is being used to draw conclusions that affect public policy.
No one knows if the heavy use of (banned in the US) pesticides are a contributing factor, but at least they should be considered in the analysis. These government agencies are controlled by the politicians, and the politicians are controlled by the corporations. So we have heavily politicized government agencies drawing causative conclusions based primarily on correlations. And this correlation has only now surfaced after nearly seventy years. Why has the virus only now become a problem? The recent use of powerful pesticides are only one of the many possible explanations. Instead, we have a knee-jerk reaction from the CDC which can easily result in more pesticides being used to "solve" the problem.
We should get the unbiased facts, but that cannot happen when the corporate-controlled agencies determine the facts. It is like asking the tobacco companies if cigarettes cause cancer. The answer you get depends upon the company that wants to make money on it.
If the pesticide in question has been banned in the US (DDT?) then presumably the microcephaly connection would have been discovered pursuant to banning it, right? And these pesticides presumably are used for lots of other mosquitos other than the Zika-carrying ones - notably malaria and - Dengue fever so why have we seen microcephaly associated with use of the pesticide to control those mosquitos?
And regarding you conflation of science with public policy, and, personally and engineer/scientist who works with numerous scientists in federal agencies - including NIOSH/CDC MSHA and OSHA. I frankly have little patience for your and other pseudo-leftist groundless slanderous accusations directed at me and my dedicated colleagues of being corrupt "shills" for the industries we regulate. It is a laughable accusation - if you knew the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the armies of lawyers the corporations send after us every time we write a citation and issue a fine or propose a new regulation. You need to tell them that we are actually on their side because they apparently have not gotten the memo.
(Yes. SR, I'm on my lunch break and my post is perfectly within employee policy)
You should open your eyes and actually talk with you colleagues. I also work with such people (and I am an engineer as well with a masters degree), and the overwhelming complaint is that scientists can no longer do science because of all of the politics. Look at climate science and tell me honestly if politics has an effect on the debate. (Hint it does.) Read the CDC report and see if they ruled out the possible link to pesticides. (Hint: pesticides are not even considered in the study.)
So please save your indignity and stick to the facts. And one important fact is that four million people worldwide have been infected with the Zika virus and the virus has been around since 1948. So why is it just now that a problem has been identified? Has the Zika virus mutated? That and other possibilities should be investigated, including other environmental issues.
Put politics aside and stick to the science. That is what the CDC should do as well.
"And as a scientist ... when the state, with a team of 50 epidemiologists, tells you you’re wrong, you second-guess yourself.”
I'm posting prior to reading others' comments... so it's possible someone else has made the point(s) I feel motivated to make.
Let's connect dots that are far from unrelated.
First, a lot of muscle came down on Robert DeNiro and his Tribeca film festival for planning to air the documentary about the Scientist (from the Centers for Disease Control) who defected, broke rank, and tried to spill the beans about the MMR vaccine. The film is entitled, Vaxxed.
Whenever brotherhoods are established--be they the priesthood, the military, the police forces, and even "tribes of academe," --anyone who counters the opinion of the majority is typically treated as a pariah.
That's why so many so-called experts went along with the false charges used as a call to war, and why so many police departments close ranks around obviously rabid cops. It's also why the scientific community acts true to an observation made by the respected (of his time) mystic, Rudolph Steiner:
"That science is mostly a consensus among mediocre minds."
It explains why the brilliant thinker, Rupert Sheldrake, had his Ted Talk on the problems attributable to the scientific orthodoxy banned.
With these points used as prelude, it seems to me that a concerted effort is being made to make the mosquito solely responsible even though Zika has existed for decades without generating such a concentration of microcephaly.
Furthermore, since one of Monsanto's subsidiaries indeed did unleash a largely untested "larvaeside" that was put into the drinking water system close to where the initial outbreak took place, thinking people might be inclined to look deeper into THAT causative agency.
So few scientists come forward about the composite deleterious effects of the BATTERY of vaccines given to kids. Any attempt to expose Big Pharma's various and sundry campaigns is treated with hostility, at minimum.The same is true for the radiation exposure streaming over on a daily basis from Fukushima. Ditto: Monsanto's destruction of the Western diet and adulteration of key food-stuffs.
I don't believe that this "evidence" is conclusive. Given the kinds of cover-ups that are now the "law" of the land (and shown in everything from bankers' malfeasance to fixing cases FOR war), anything an authority states with certitude ought to come under profound and unrelenting scrutiny!
If those of us who believe the outbreak of microcephaly is more about one of Monsanto's "cures" run amok; then imagine the implications! The epidemics of infant brain deformities will lead to fear, and that fear will be treated with more of Monsanto's "cure." And all the while, mosquitoes will be blamed (while more babies with lifelong infirmities are born), and they go back millions of years.
In other words, mosquitoes hold a formidable evolutionary track record!
I wrote a children's book about 10 years ago that I plan to turn into an animated movie script. The premise is that Creator tried out the Zodiac on insects first... to see if the plan worked.
It's a little girl who makes this discovery and she brings it to the attention of her grandfather, a scientist who specializes in finding the world's greatest pesticide.
Discussing the matter of flies, gnats, and mosquitoes, it's clear that such creatures are NOT a Divine Creation. They spread diseases and are nuisances. In the story, they're official named "The Unriddables..." because for centuries, the best of scientists have sought to get rid of them to no avail.
It should be noted that the CDC did not charge nor absolve any source of chemical producers or the application of their products. What it did was make a statement of certitude that the "….increasing evidence from a number of recently published studies and a careful evaluation using established scientific criteria..." which lead to the conclusion that the “Zika virus causes fetal defects, including microcephaly” and that mosquitoes are the chief vector for its transmission. Full Stop.
That there is considerable lack of trust in oversight agencies is to say night follows day. And when a major influence on these agencies is the ratings given to them by such protectors of the common good as the national Chamber of Commerce it's understandable that a large mistrust can exist. Additionally, it not difficult to see a type of grouping taking place. People who work in comparable fields or have some similarities via background and/or education will often take an empathetic view when claims are made against a source in those fields. You see this with jurors in civil court cases. These companies/agencies are often by their nature in a position of a defendant rather than that of a plaintiff, healthcare providers for instance, and this in turn can elicit a sense of 'unfairness'.
Science is definitely not immune to the biases and machinations of institutional behaviors. Not by a long shot. However, judgments should take into account past history. The CDC is not the Food and Drug Administration. Fortunately. Sources such as the CDC and climate science I find to be quite trust worthy and a very necessary ally for the common good. A hint in that regard is that powerful, wealth and thus influential sources rarely, if ever, say anything positive about those agencies.
You had me till the 3rd paragraph.
You certainly make a fine case in your first two; but if it's used to lend legitimacy to that which is hardly a proven certainty... that's suspect.
Notice how Yunzer, in marching lockstep with FEDERAL scientific "authorities," tries to make the problem into a character flaw in the individual questioning the Orthodoxy?
THAT is what Yunzer typically does in this forum.
His job is to hold the parameter on what passes for allowable discourse. Seems to me he's had a bit of training in the Cass Sunstein playbook.