Robin Hood wrote:GiG:
Why would you accept it's a virus that causes microcephaly and not a chemical? Both are possible - both can cause developmental deformities (eg German Measles or Thalidomide).
But I haven't seen any data that suggests all of the mothers with deformed babies have antibodies to Zika. Until that test is done, then the pesticide possibility is worth investigating.
I agree with you. I am no microbiologist but I think the scientific community need to look at all possible causes. At the moment they are convinced it is ZIKA which gives them a preconceived theory to work with. As you say, so far there has been no confirmation one way or the other.
What gives me concerns is that this story has not been covered at all in the MSM and if you associate that insecticide with Monsanto, who make Roundup and of course Agent Orange, there is the suspicion that there
could be a cover up going on?
Trying to find what tests have been used to determine precisely why they have jumped so strongly to the conclusion that this outbreak of microcephaly is due to Zika doesn't yield much meaningful information. It even makes it look more shaky. Very conveniently in answer to my above query on testing for the presence of antibodies to prove mums had been infected with Zika gave me this:
The ACOG also lists screening of Zika-fighting antibodies as a possible way to confirm if a person had an infection, but this isn’t a feasible solution for much of the Americas, including the U.S.
“We don’t have a reliable antibody test for Zika virus, because it cross reacts with other flaviviruses, particularly dengue,” Lucey said, resulting in false positive readings.
pbs.org
That's all very convenient if they wanted a cover-up.
But why would any scientist come out and strongly support this working hypothesis if there is so little definitive evidence?
