[9/7/16] J.D. HEYES– For some reason, the federal government’s principle public health agency keeps trying to turn the Zika virus into something it isn’t: a major health crisis. At the same time, it wants to poison us with a chemical that is far worse than the disease it is meant to eradicate.
Based on little more than anecdotal evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have us believe that the Zika virus, which medical scientists have been aware of for decades, causes a rare paralytic condition known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
“Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an uncommon sickness of the nervous system in which a person’s own immune system damages the nerve cells, causing muscle weakness, and sometimes, paralysis,” the agency says on its website.
“Several countries that have experienced Zika outbreaks recently have reported increases in people who have Guillain-Barre syndrome,” the agency said, adding that its own research “suggests” that Zika could lead to an increase in GBS, even though only “a small portion” of people stricken with the virus actually wind up with the syndrome.
A study measuring whether there is any difference in the percentage of people who contract GBS but were never infected with the virus would seem appropriate.
Many detrimental effects to our health
The agency further noted that its scientists don’t really know how people contract GBS, so it’s difficult to believe that they would be able to accurately associate it with Zika. More likely, however, is that the instances of paralysis are being caused by the chemical-laced pesticides being sprayed to eradicate Zika-carrying mosquitoes.
As we reported in August, one of those – Naled, an organophosphate – is linked to some of the same health outcomes and symptoms as Zika.
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
But the local CBS affiliate did not report anything about Naled, which has been identified as a cause of respiratory illnesses, hypotension, incontinence, gastrointestinal disorders, excessive sweating and blurring of vision. In severe instances, we noted last month, Naled can cause seizures and tremors, comas, paralysis, convulsions, cancers of the breast, esophagus, thyroid, kidneys and colon, as well as leukemia and even death.
Far worse for humans than Zika
Naled, which is manufactured by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, is listed as having numerous side effects, including both acute and chronic problems. That makes it much more dangerous than Zika, which normally has only mild effects. In fact, the CDC itself lists the most common symptoms as low-grade fever, muscle pain, headache, joint pain and red eyes.
Also, unlike Zika, Naled exposure does not translate into lifelong immunity; it can be a very dangerous chemical after just a single exposure, and over time, could became even more of a danger as it collects in a person’s body.
“The most common and worst application of Naled is aerial because its toxicity increases up to 20-fold this way and it can drift up to 1/2-mile,” noted Sadhu Govardhan of Govardhan Gardens in Puerto Rico, another region of the world where Zika is said to be a major threat.
In an interview with author and multiracial media mogul Sarah Ratliff, Govardhan also said that Naled has been known to be highly toxic to birds, fish and beneficial insects like bees. And unlike most other insecticides, Naled has been found to interfere with the photosynthesis of plants, thereby causing damage to our flora.
“In short,” Govardhan said, “the toxic, acute and chronic, long-term effects of Naled on humans and nature are horrendous–by far worse than the virus it is used to prevent.”
That’s not all. We also reported last month that a 2014 University of California study found that in major agricultural areas around the state where pesticides containing Naled are used, mothers have a 60 percent greater chance of having a child with autism.
“We should prove safety and not just say well because it hasn’t been proven detrimental it’s ok. That’s not good enough,” noted board-certified neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter.