New estimates from Johns Hopkins have suggested that the cost of the so-called Zika virus this year will amount to at least $183 million — and that’s if it’s a “mild season.” The researchers say that if it’s a more severe “outbreak,” it could cost up to a staggering $1.2 billion.
While most people who have the Zika virus experience little to no side effects, the mainstream media continues to purport that when pregnant women get the mosquito-born virus, it can have perilous effects on their unborn children. Microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome are among some of the more concerning problems, but the Zika virus’s association with these issues are rather questionable. These doubts are what have led many people, such as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, to believe that the Zika virus scare is nothing more than a cover-up. As Adams explained last winter, “A group of doctors from South America are now saying the brain deformations the world is witnessing are caused by the mass fumigation of low-income Brazilian people with a chemical larvicide, not by mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus.”
As the Brazilian doctors revealed, the areas in Brazil hit hardest by birth defects like microcephaly also just so happened to be areas where a toxic larvacide known as “pyriproxyfen” had been applied to the water supply for the last 18 months. So while the Brazilian Ministry of Health was quick to place the blame on the Zika virus, there is reason to believe that the virus isn’t what’s causing the tidal wave of birth defects — the pesticide is.
In addition to what the doctors from Brazil have revealed, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has also cast doubts on the validity of the belief that Zika causes microcephaly. The researchers examined 12,000 pregnant Colombian women who were thought to have the Zika virus. None of the babies carried by the women who participated in the study exhibited signs of microcephaly.
It is estimated that roughly 60,000 women in Colombia have contracted the Zika virus. As Science Daily explains, “The expected microcephaly rate for countries with no reported infections of 2-in-10,000 births gives exactly four cases. The study also notes that until April 28 there has been a total of about 50 microcephaly cases in Colombia, of which only four have been connected with Zika. The four cases are expected for the coincidence of Zika and microcephaly in the same pregnancies even if Zika is not the cause.”
In other words, it is very possible that none of the microcephaly cases diagnosed in Colombia are related to the Zika virus. The incidence of microcephaly in Colombia is dramatically lower than what’s been observed in Brazil — a country with over 1500 confirmed cases. If the Zika virus was truly the problem, wouldn’t more Colombian newborns be affected?
This finding underscores the fact that the larvacide being added to the water supply in Brazil is likely what’s behind the rising number of birth defects. Physicians groups in Brazil and Argentina, the Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, and the New England Complex Systems Institute — which conducted the Colombian study — are both calling for a deeper review of pyriproxyfen’s safety.
Given that pyriproxyfen’s primary route of action is not to kill, but rather maim forming larvae via malformations, it seems logical that if exposed frequently enough, the same thing would happen to a developing fetus. Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor that interferes with the process of mosquito larvae transforming into pupae and adults — resulting in abnormalities that lead to disability or death. Is it really that hard to connect the dots? The Zika virus outbreak is a scam — and a costly one at that. Who knows what other toxins will use a “virus” as a scapegoat.