5 Most Bizarre Zika Virus Facts

Without question the Zika virus pandemic is proving to be very challenging, expensive, and, most important of all, mysterious.  Diseases involving viruses always present special challenges, especially when little is known about the virus in question.  The Zika virus, however, is unique in several ways. 

For starters, this virus is the perfect storm for what some people like to call "conspiracy theories."  Supposedly endemic (like Ebola) to the deep jungles of Africa, the Zika virus didn't appear to pose a very serious threat to either animals or people.  In fact, most of the people who get infected with it don't go on to develop disease, or so we're being told. 

Even those who become symptomatic develop mostly mild conditions:  a slight fever, some aches and pains, slight visual problems, and a mild form of conjunctivitis.  The latest version of the Zika virus disease (ZVD), however, has somehow, by all appearances, developed a more serious set of pathological circumstances.

That alone is reason to become suspicious, considering that viruses, in general, don't easily or quickly change modes of transmission, virulence or pathogenicity.  Viruses can change, adapt or mutate but, in general, this takes years and usually involves many intricate processes, most of which have to occur in prescribed conditions, usually involving vectors, hosts and an easily-infected population that meets special criteria.

In fact, most viruses are not pathogenic--some even serve useful purposes and, like bacteria, serve a symbiotic role within the human body.  How or why, then, did the Zika virus become so dangerous is something which begs some very important questions--questions, we might add, which have nothing to do with "conspiracy theories."

If something doesn't make sense or is outside the norm, it's not only normal to start asking questions, it's also good, hardcore science. 

The fact of the matter is that some things about the Zika virus pandemic can easily be called "bizarre."  Here are 5 perfect examples:

1.  What were they doing with the Zika virus while it sat in labs owned or sanctioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, the organization which supposedly originally isolated the bug and, according to some people, patented it?  Was the virus genetically altered in any way or, what would be more horrifying (and, considering the simplicity of a virus' DNA or RNA, not outside our scientific capacity), was it created in a lab? Or did it just sit in vials undisturbed by human ingenuity for all these years?

What prompts these questions is the fact that the Zika virus appears to have mutated or been genetically modified. How else can one explain why a virus which previously only inflicted mild symptoms is now able to bring about serious birth defects (e.g., microcephaly and cranial calcification), Barre Guillaume syndrome, and a few other potentially fatal conditions?

Another point forcing this issue is the virus now being transmissible through placental fluids, blood and semen--in other words, a capacity indicative of a change in mode of transmission/virulence/pathogenesis, something which doesn't occur too easily or readily in natural environments.  This point was made very clear by experts of the CDC when some people started voicing fear that the Ebola virus might, by changing its mode of transmission, become air-borne. These CDC experts didn't just say that Ebola wasn't likely to too-easily/quickly change mode of transmission but, more importantly, that viruses in general don't do that. 

2.  Why were the Brazilian health ministry, the CDC and WHO from the onset of this epidemic so eager to point at the Zika virus as the most likely culprit of the increased cases of microcephaly (and other birth defects) in Brazil? 

Clearly, there wasn't enough scientific evidence at the time to make that call and it is questionable whether the evidence is conclusive even today.  At best, what should have been said is that there might be a connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly, as long as it was also made clear that the door on other possibilities had to remain open. 

Since a connection was at best tenuous in late 2015 and early 2016, again, why the rush to make such a connection?  Such suspicions are usually held in check until appropriate case control and other epidemiological studies, as well as more in-depth experiments/forensic examinations, can be carried out.

It's this uncharacteristic rush to make a connection without the ample time or scientific investigatory tools necessary to make the connection which has prompted some people to assert that this connection was hastily concocted in order to hide the true reason for the birth defects . . . the use of pyriproxyfen (a larvicide poured into the public drinking water of Brazilians).  If this proved to be the real reason, it would have led to billions of dollars in lawsuits against the makers of pyriproxyfen, and possibly against the other giant polluters of Brazil's water supplies.

First of all, the fact that too many toxic pesticides are being used in South America isn't a "conspiracy theory" but a well-established fact; it's naive at best for anyone to suggest that the tons of pesticides being irresponsibly dumped in both South and North America couldn't possibly be inducing serious medical problems, including, possibly, microcephaly! 

3. Again showing a peculiar impetus to rush to judgment, the Brazilian health authorities, WHO and the CDC too quickly went on to dismiss pyriproxyfen as a possible cause of microcephaly, other birth defects, and the other medical complications (Barre Guillaume syndrome) seen in Zika virus-infected persons.  There simply hadn't been any enough time or opportunity to establish whether this larvicide was connected to these medical complications--so, again, why the rush to "debunk" the theory. 

For the record, as of October 2016, such a connection has not been irrefutably scientifically "debunked" by anyone.  Not enough time has elapsed to conduct the necessary epidemiological studies, nor has there been an impetus to allude to such.  Medical examinations, autopsy of cadavers and the opinion of experts in the field are, at best, anecdotal evidence. 

In spite of this, the mainstream media from the beginning has been churning out one-sided articles asserting that this association is without scientific merit; what exactly did these journalistic spin-masters use to make such a determination . . . a magic crystal ball?

It's not true that there is no scientific basis for suspecting a larvicide such as pyriproxyfen may lead to birth defects such as microcephaly.  The purpose of most insecticides and pesticides is to disrupt normal physiological mechanisms, especially in regard to reproduction.  Pyriproxyfen is meant to impair the larvae's ability to develop normally; what such a chemical may do to a human fetus (were it ever to be absorbed into the placenta) would be anyone's guess. 

The only way to determine how pyriproxyfen might affect the development of a human fetus would be through formal epidemiological studies.  WHO claims that some toxicological safety studies were conducted but these studies involved mostly (if not exclusively) animals and they should have been aggressively made available to those of us who can render an objective opinion as to whether they definitively remove pyriproxyfen as a potential culprit of the birth defects seen in Brazil. Those studies alluded to most often are either inconclusive or heavily biased.

In fact, there are very few formal studies available in the epidemiological databases that ask the necessary teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic questions regarding pyriproxyfen, especially when used in drinking water.  It's clear that such studies are necessary before pyriproxyfen can be either blamed or exculpated as a potential cause/contributing factor to the birth defects and other medical complications seen in Brazil.

4.  Why was pyriproxyfen being put in the drinking water in Brazil to begin with?  Firstly, the purpose of this type of larvicide is to disrupt the development cycle of the larvae of the Aedes mosquitoes that supposedly carry the Zika virus.  Yes, these mosquitoes reside and develop in water but why it was decided to put it directly in the drinking water is, at best, a toxicological and epidemiological gamble. 

This might have made more sense if the water had then been put through fine filters that removed the poison before being ingested by human beings.  How would the larvicide affect humans? More importantly, how would it affect pregnant women and developing fetuses? These questions needed to be answered before this experiment was conducted.  And the only way to get such answers would have been to conduct toxicological/epidemiological studies involving humans (over a number of years, not months). 

Of course, such studies were not conducted because they would have been unethical--at least that's what WHO and the CDC might say.  Was it less unethical to just start pouring this poison (and, let's be frank about this:  pyriproxyfen is a dangerous chemical/poison the purpose of which is to kill mosquitoes by disrupting their reproductive/developmental cycles!) into the drinking water of unsuspecting, not-asked-for-their-consent Brazilians? 

Those of you who are still skeptical about the possibility that some people are simply trying to hide the real cause of the microcephaly incidents need to write to WHO so you can get your own copies of the studies they say prove pyriproxyfen is perfectly safe for humans.  Such studies, if they exist, should have been made public by now. 

The studies WHO, the CDC and government health agencies often allude to feature animals (instead of human beings), were too short in duration, were not peer-reviewed by a trust-worthy, independent scientific organization, and don't properly account for bias, glaring conflicts of interest and the many confounding variables in question. In other words, they are heavily-flawed, at best.

5.  Why has microcephaly (and a few other medical complications) made such a more pronounced appearance in Brazil and not in other areas where the Zika virus is just as prevalent, if not more prevalent.  Clearly, from a simple epidemiological perspective, we have to look for other causative/contributive factors other than the Zika virus. 

Of course, the Zika virus strain in Brazil might have undergone a mutation it may not have undergone elsewhere (that is possible for any virus--evidence of such, for example, has been seen with the flu virus); while that might explain why microcephaly was seen in Brazil in higher numbers than elsewhere, such an explanation (until confirmed) would also leave the door open for other reasonably plausible explanations, including the rampant use of insecticides in a country that has always been plagued by disease-bearing mosquitoes (and other vectors).  

Conclusion

There are still too many unanswered questions concerning the Zika virus.  While so-called conspiracy theories should always be eschewed, alluding to troubling concerns and asking questions which the authorities seem to have trouble answering is not being "conspiratorial." Instead, it's more correctly called "scientific enquiry."

Maybe the Zika virus is indeed responsible for microcephaly (and the other medical complications in question) but, if so, that can only be conclusively proven with adequate epidemiological studies and scientific experiments.  But even before such evidence has become available, the official impetus seems to be to spray tons of highly toxic chemicals which may inflict more harm in the long run than the Zika virus is capable of inducing. 

It's not unreasonable, in fact, to say that the government's policies have thus far been glaringly pro-pesticides, as if the Zika virus were the only possible culprit in this scenario.

Could it be that the Zika virus is being used to provide, ironically, a smoke screen for a more sinister, man-rather-than-Mother-Nature-induced problem?  What's potentially even more pathetic and reprehensible: "is the Zika virus being used as an excuse to sell thousands of tons of pesticides at a huge profit for the chemical companies?"

Thirdly, is the campaign to spray millions of gallons of pesticides all over the world (using the Zika virus as, at best, a lame excuse) just another global depopulation agenda event?  In other words, is the real goal to kill millions of people instead of protecting anyone from the "highly-dreaded, capable-of-ending-life-on-this-planet" (albeit, only to the most gullible, easily manipulated people on this planet) Zika virus?

Would such reprehensible chicanery, fraud & cruelty really surprise you, if it proved to be true?