Zika And Microcephaly – Someone Got Their Dates Mixed Up

Wendell Forster

Natural Blaze

August 22, 2016

After reading numerous reports regarding the Zika virus circulating in the mainstream and alternative media, the question must be asked, “Why is everyone clambering to blame Zika for the cases of Microcephaly that have been occurring?” Before making such a knee-jerk reaction, a number of facts must first be considered.

The first reported outbreaks of Microcephaly which the WHO appeared to link to Zika occurred on 30th October 2015.

The WHO reported that,

“30 October 2015: Brazil reports an unusual increase in the number of cases of microcephaly among newborns since August, numbering 54 by 30 October.”

The first reported potential detection of Zika in Brazil was 2nd March 2015. WHO reported,

“2 March 2015: Brazil notifies WHO of reports of an illness characterized by skin rash in northeastern states. From February 2015 to 29 April 2015, nearly 7000 cases of illness with skin rash are reported in these states. All cases are mild, with no reported deaths. Of 425 blood samples taken for differential diagnosis, 13% are positive for dengue. Tests for chikungunya, measles, rubella, parvovirus B19, and enterovirus are negative. Zika was not suspected at this stage, and no tests for Zika were carried out.”

But you will note Zika was not suspected and tests were not conducted. The official Zika confirmation didn’t come until 7th May 2015 when Brazil’s National Reference Laboratory confirmed the Bahia State Laboratory’s report of a positive test dated 29th April 2015.

Again, from the WHO,

“7 May 2015: Brazil’s National Reference Laboratory confirms, by PCR, Zika virus circulation in the country. This is the first report of locally acquired Zika disease in the Americas.”

The increase in cases of Microcephaly started occurring only 7 months after detection. Clearly, the human gestation period is 9 months. So that does not tally with the first potential reports of Zika on 2nd March.

Prior to Zika being reported in Brazil the country was already in the grip of a Dengue fever outbreak and this is part of the advice from a Pan American Health Organisation PDF document entitled “Epidemiological Alert: Chikungunya And Dengue Fever In The Americas.”

The advice is as follows:

• Implement breeding site control measures through the use of physical, biological and chemical methods, while actively involving communities.
• Identify high risk of transmission areas (risk stratification) and prioritize those where there are concentrations of people (e.g.: schools, transportation terminals, hospitals, health centers, etc.). The presence of mosquitoes should be removed at a diameter of at least 400 meter radius around these facilities.
• In areas where an autochthonous or imported case of chikungunya transmission is detected, adulticide treatment (primarily through spraying) could be used to remove infected adult mosquitoes in order to interrupt transmission. It is important to take into account that this action is exceptional and is only effective when executed by adequately trained personnel following internationally accepted technical guidelines and when performed concomitantly to other proposed actions ( as described above). Spraying is the primary manner to intensively interrupt transmission and obtain time to consolidate the removal of larval habitats.
• Select appropriate insecticide (in accordance with PAHO/WHO recommendations), verify the product label and formula, and consider the susceptibility of mosquito populations to that insecticide.
• Maintain and use spraying equipment in an appropriate manner and maintain a stockpile of insecticides.

If spraying began after this date then this would coincide more with the increased incidents of Microcephaly which began being reported in Brazil since August 2015.

As the WHO states,

30 October 2015: Brazil reports an unusual increase in the number of cases of Microcephaly among newborns since August, numbering 54 by 30 October.

The number of Microcephaly cases has only grown since then:

11 November 2015: Brazil reports 141 suspected cases of microcephaly in Pernambuco state. Further suspected cases are being investigated in two additional states, Paraiba and Rio Grande do Norte.

But these reported cases would have been conceived prior to the reported outbreaks of Zika so a causal link to Zika would have been unlikely. The far more likely cause would be the pesticides that are being utilized (In Florida they are utilizing the very creepily named NALED) which are known to be toxic to humans and with high or repeated dosage can lead to neurological effects, breathing problems, heart issues and other health conditions amongst children and adults and are potentially very harmful to unborn children.

How can a virus, discovered in 1947, go from 0 related deaths and 0 related reports of Microcephaly to sudden and massive ‘connections’ to Microcephaly and other Neuro disorders? How are these connections made?

Many of us will have seen Brazilian government agencies spraying pesticide in high volumes in and around the country’s numerous Olympic sporting venues. Thousands upon thousands of people will unknowingly come in to contact with the residual pesticides that will have coated everything in the area from walls to railings, steps, and seats. Many of these will be women who may well be pregnant or who may well go on to conceive soon after they leave (indeed some conception may take place in Brazil).

So the next phase is likely to see a global outbreak of Microcephaly followed by the Government and Media shit storm, maybe even a suspiciously timed report finding the ‘Zika Carrying’ mosquitoes in the area where the outbreak has occurred, followed by the WHO recommending pesticide spraying in the affected areas. And so the cycle continues.

Just look at Florida. They have alleged that people have tested positive for the Zika virus following mandatory provision of urine samples collected door to door by government agents. Has anyone followed those agents to the labs and watched the positive result being produced from their sample? I feel confident they have not.

The government has got some alleged positive results and, from this, it has made the decisions to spray heavily populated areas of Florida with the NALED pesticide prior to any reported cases of Microcephaly occurring. These heavily populated areas will undoubtedly have many women who have recently conceived and many others who are likely to conceive soon and they are all being dosed with NALED. The Florida Department Of Health is on record saying that exposure to NALED “could cause a person to salivate more, feel numbness, headaches, dizziness, tremors, nausea, abdominal cramps, sweating, blurred vision, difficulty breathing and a slowed heartbeat.”

And the description of NALED provided by the Pesticide Management Education Programme out of Cornell University has this to say about NALED:

Naled is moderately to highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation and dermal adsorption. Vapors or fumes of naled are corrosive to the mucous membranes lining the mouth, throat and lungs, and inhalation may cause severe irritation. A sensation of tightness in the chest and coughing are commonly experienced after inhalation. As with all organophosphates, naled is readily absorbed through the skin. Skin which has come in contact with this material should be washed immediately with soap and water and all contaminated clothing should be removed. Persons with respiratory ailments, recent exposure to cholinesterase inhibitors, impaired cholinesterase production, or with liver malfunction may be at increased risk from exposure to naled. High environmental temperatures or exposure of naled to visible or UV light may enhance its toxicity.

Where did the Florida agencies involved in spraying suddenly get hold of such large quantities of NALED? To begin spraying such large volumes so soon after the initial alleged Zika detection would suggest that this spraying has been planned for some time. If it could be shown that the orders were placed well in advance of the spraying commencing it would certainly beg a number of questions. I certainly hope that someone begins looking into this aspect immediately.

Meanwhile, in Colombia, out of 12,000 pregnant women up to 28th March, 2016 who were symptomatic of Zika, none gave birth to babies with Microcephaly. At the same time, four other women who were symptomless gave birth to four Microcephaly babies. This low level of just four births is in line with the natural ‘background’ occurrence of Microcephaly which runs at around 2/10000. How can one country have 1,500 cases somehow linked to Zika but a neighbouring country have none?

With all this in mind, many should start taking a look at the possibility that the rates of Microcephaly may be more connected to the application of pesticides and human exposure to them than anything related to Zika itself.

Image by Natural Blaze, pixabay

Wendell Forster wrote this article (Zika and Microcephaly – Someone Got Their Dates Mixed Up) as a guest contribution to Natural Blaze, where it first appeared.