CDC Makes Zika Virus Claims Using Shaky Evidence
Zika has made waves in headlines with its supposed connection to microcephaly, but the CDC doesn’t tell you the whole story.
Since the “outbreak” began in April 2015, the Zika Virus has been a major focus of various health organizations. However, despite all the attention being drawn to Zika, misinformation appears to still be at the forefront. A quick google search is all it takes to see that laboratories around the world are “racing for a Zika vaccine.” The CDC claims that the spread of this virus must be contained, lest we fall victim to a generation of children afflicted with microcephaly. It sounds scary, but the CDC puts out statements and goals based on shaky evidence in order to push the vaccine narrative.
The evidence in question comes from a paper put forth by the New England Journal of Medicine, a publication that is of course well-respected and world renowned. The paper has been cited as proof of the connection between the Zika virus and birth defects in publications throughout the country. The connection is dubious at best though, and there are glaring problems with this piece of evidence: It makes the logical fallacy that correlation is causation by saying that since birth defects are rare and infection by the virus is rare, any instances where both are present is considered proof that Zika is the cause. No other possible sources or influences were tested as causes for birth defects. The paper makes the claim that a woman who travels to an infested area and gives birth to a deformed child is also proof, even if the mother never became infected, and cited studies with laughably small subject pools.
Despite these very clear and obvious issues with the evidence, Big Pharma and most media outlets are pushing the narrative that Zika is an extremely dangerous virus and that a vaccine is the only thing that will save us. But when the evidence is lacking, how can you not question the motives behind the push for this narrative?