Zika Outbreak Epicenter in Same Area Where GM Mosquitoes Were Released in 2015

January 28, 2016   |   Claire Bernish

Claire Bernish
January 28, 2016
(Updated for accuracy February 4, 2106)

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — The World Health Organization announced it will convene an Emergency Committee under International Health Regulations on Monday, February 1, concerning the Zika virus ‘explosive’ spread throughout the Americas. The virus reportedly has the potential to reach pandemic proportions — possibly around the globe. But understanding why this outbreak happened is vital to curbing it. As the WHO statement said:

“A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth malformations and neurological syndromes … is strongly suspected. [These links] have rapidly changed the risk profile of Zika, from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions.

“WHO is deeply concerned about this rapidly evolving situation for 4 main reasons: the possible association of infection with birth malformations and neurological syndromes; the potential for further international spread given the wide geographical distribution of the mosquito vector; the lack of population immunity in newly affected areas; and the absence of vaccines, specific treatments, and rapid diagnostic tests […]

“The level of concern is high, as is the level of uncertainty.”

Zika seemingly exploded out of nowhere. Though it was first discovered in 1947, cases only sporadically occurred throughout Africa and southern Asia. In 2007, the first case was reported in the Pacific. In 2013, a smattering of small outbreaks and individual cases were officially documented in Africa and the western Pacific. They also began showing up in the Americas. In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus — and the situation changed dramatically.

Brazil is now considered the epicenter of the Zika outbreak, which coincides with at least 4,000 reports of babies born with microcephaly just since October.

zika-microcephalyWhen examining a rapidly expanding potential pandemic, it’s necessary to leave no stone unturned so possible solutions, as well as future prevention, will be as effective as possible. In that vein, there was another significant development in 2015.

Oxitec first unveiled its large-scale, genetically-modified mosquito farm in Brazil in July 2012, with the goal of reducing “the incidence of dengue fever,” as The Disease Daily reported. Dengue fever is spread by the same Aedes mosquitoes which spread the Zika virus — and though they “cannot fly more than 400 meters,” WHO stated, “it may inadvertently be transported by humans from one place to another.” By July 2015, shortly after the GM mosquitoes were first released into the wild in Juazeiro, Brazil, Oxitec proudly announced they had “successfully controlled the Aedes aegypti mosquito that spreads dengue fever, chikungunya and zika virus, by reducing the target population by more than 90%.”

Though that might sound like an astounding success — and, arguably, it was — there is an alarming possibility to consider.

Nature, as one Redditor keenly pointed out, finds a way — and the effort to control dengue, Zika, and other viruses may have backfired dramatically.

Juazeiro, Brazil — the location where genetically-modified mosquitoes were first released into the wild.

Juazeiro, Brazil — the location where genetically-modified mosquitoes were first released into the wild.

zika

Map showing the concentration of suspected Zika-related cases of microcephaly in Brazil.

The particular strain of Oxitec GM mosquitoes, OX513A, are genetically altered so the vast majority of their offspring will die before they mature — though Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher published concerns in a report in September 2010 that a known survival rate of 3-4 percent warranted further study before the release of the GM insects. Her concerns, which were echoed by several other scientists both at the time and since, appear to have been ignored — though they should not have been.

Those genetically-modified mosquitoes work to control wild, potentially disease-carrying populations in a very specific manner. Only the male modified Aedes mosquitoes are supposed to be released into the wild — as they will mate with their unaltered female counterparts. Once offspring are produced, the modified, scientific facet is supposed to ‘kick in’ and kill that larvae before it reaches breeding age — if tetracycline is not present during its development. But there is a problem.

zika-mosquito

Aedes aegypti mosquito. Image credit: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

According to an unclassified document from the Trade and Agriculture Directorate Committee for Agriculture dated February 2015, Brazil is the third largest in “global antimicrobial consumption in food animal production” — meaning, Brazil is third in the world for its use of tetracycline in its food animals. As a study by the American Society of Agronomy, et. al., explained, “It is estimated that approximately 75% of antibiotics are not absorbed by animals and are excreted in waste.” One of the antibiotics (or antimicrobials) specifically named in that report for its environmental persistence is tetracycline.

In fact, as a confidential internal Oxitec document divulged in 2012, that survival rate could be as high as 15% — even with low levels of tetracycline present. “Even small amounts of tetracycline can repress” the engineered lethality. Indeed, that 15% survival rate was described by Oxitec:

“After a lot of testing and comparing experimental design, it was found that [researchers] had used a cat food to feed the [OX513A] larvae and this cat food contained chicken. It is known that tetracycline is routinely used to prevent infections in chickens, especially in the cheap, mass produced, chicken used for animal food. The chicken is heat-treated before being used, but this does not remove all the tetracycline. This meant that a small amount of tetracycline was being added from the food to the larvae and repressing the [designed] lethal system.”

Even absent this tetracycline, as Steinbrecher explained, a “sub-population” of genetically-modified Aedes mosquitoes could theoretically develop and thrive, in theory, “capable of surviving and flourishing despite any further” releases of ‘pure’ GM mosquitoes which still have that gene intact. She added, “the effectiveness of the system also depends on the [genetically-designed] late onset of the lethality. If the time of onset is altered due to environmental conditions … then a 3-4% [survival rate] represents a much bigger problem…”

As the WHO stated in its press release, “conditions associated with this year’s El Nino weather pattern are expected to increase mosquito populations greatly in many areas.”

Incidentally, President Obama called for a massive research effort to develop a vaccine for the Zika virus, as one does not currently exist. Brazil has now called in 200,000 soldiers to somehow help combat the virus’ spread. Aedes mosquitoes have reportedly been spotted in the U.K. But perhaps the most ironic — or not — proposition was proffered on January 19, by the MIT Technology Review:

“An outbreak in the Western Hemisphere could give countries including the United States new reasons to try wiping out mosquitoes with genetic engineering.

“Yesterday, the Brazilian city of Piracicaba said it would expand the use of genetically modified mosquitoes …

“The GM mosquitoes were created by Oxitec, a British company recently purchased by Intrexon, a synthetic biology company based in Maryland. The company said it has released bugs in parts of Brazil and the Cayman Islands to battle dengue fever.”


This article (Zika Outbreak Epicenter in Same Area Where GM Mosquitoes Were Released in 2015) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Author: Claire Bernish

Claire Bernish joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in May of 2015. Her topics of interest include thwarting war propaganda through education, the refugee crisis & related issues, 1st Amendment concerns, ending police brutality, and general government & corporate accountability. Born in North Carolina, she now lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Share This Post On

116 Comments

  1. XD Mosquitose have been used as a wepon b4, why does this surprise people so much ? Is this not another step forward in pop-ctrl

    Post a Reply
  2. the zika virus as first identified in 1956 and was prevalent in africa and asia, where were those GMO mosquitoes then?

    Post a Reply
  3. What's the connection, then, between the GM mosquito release and the Zika outbreak… Is it just that there are more mosquitos than expected? Or is the article saying they are actually more effective at spreading the disease?

    Post a Reply
  4. the mosquitoes didn't invent a virus. they're probably just somehow better at carrying it

    Post a Reply
  5. Well said, Jim.

    Most people out there (or in this website or some conspiracy page) will believe this stupid write up. They believe without even thinking or doing some basic research that they can do it immediately as they are on the internet. Sheesh.

    What's worst is if we were to argue with these people they will call us "Sheeples who are brainwashed by the government or media" or "ignorant". Such fools.

    Post a Reply
  6. The GM mosquitos where released there because that was an area with exceptionally high occurance of Zika. Check the dates, do your basic fact checking, be a proper journalist/investigative reporter not lazy before writting this dribble!!!!

    Post a Reply
  7. The scientists test the mosquitos in the area and check if they have the genes… It's not hard at all. Making a claim that the GM mosquitos are somehow making the ZIKA virus more prevalent? What a huge fail at logic.

    Post a Reply
  8. The news is very good but the Google Maps screeshot with the red arrow is pointing to the wrong city. You are pointing Juazeiro do Norte in the state of Ceará, and the GM mosquito was released in Juazeiro, state of Bahia, a bit down on the map.

    Post a Reply
  9. According to Prejudice oppinion, Africa is a Pandora Box from which ALL 'Deadly Evils' sprang…except Mineral and Human wealth for the WEST

    Post a Reply
  10. DDT effects on the enviroment? [TED Talks Had some talks bout the mosquito problems in the world way better than pestacides]

    But yea this mosquito virus thing is spreading lol why ?

    Post a Reply
  11. Sarah Caley \the mosquitoes didn't invent a virus. they're probably just somehow better at carrying it\

    the gm mosquitoes are males and males dont bite

    Post a Reply
  12. what if the location was prone to developing a zika epidemic anyway? If there are large numbers of mosquitoes there is a large chance of an epidemic happening. And you usually dont test an anti mosquito measure in an area with few mosquitoes

    correlation does not imply causation

    Post a Reply
  13. and doesnt the GM mosquito flouresce because of the flourescence gene that was attached? If GM mosquitoes really did survive and breed then it would be stupidly easy to catch wild mosquitoes, separate out the females, then bring along a UV blacklight and see if they glow

    Post a Reply
  14. DDT I agree! It was never considered a health heazourd until after the western world got cleared from the Anopheles mosquito.
    I agree it is nasty stuff you spay it once and 15 years later you still find traces in the soil. However that is also the reason why it works and why you do not need to use so much of it as with current pesticides. It is also very cheap now that the patent has expired!
    Finally thought; Deaths proven to be related to DDT intake versus deaths due to Malaria… school kids can do the math on that!

    Post a Reply
  15. What a "coincidence". I just got an email from my daughter telling me I was right.

    Post a Reply
  16. So you're saying everything is ok because we can go, what…vaccume up mosquitos and SORT them?

    Are you out of your mind? Lol

    Post a Reply
  17. Major question is if the Zika virus has somehow changed and why does it seem to coincide with this realease the new effects it seems to be having. Fact is that Zika was of little concern prior, so was it a random mutation or did these new mosquitoes somehow alter it. Horizontal transfers have known to occur, so maybe some of that new DNA got into the virus, haven't seen any studies on that done…

    Post a Reply
  18. Noticing in some of the comments that people are missing the point of this article. Like most information-based articles should be, it raises questions as to what could be a potential cause for the recent outbreak. So you're telling me there can be absolutely no connection between GM mosquitoes manufactured to "stop" the outbreak, when in turn the onset of the disease has become more prevalent? That even though there was a known survival rate of the breeded species of mosquitoes, that under certain environmental conditions (which seem to be favorable in this area) that survival rate would increase, AND it was STILL released into the wild to potentially cause more outbreaks? If anything this article raises important questions regarding the ethical uses of genetically modified organisms without universal consent from all populations.

    Post a Reply
  19. Where's the actual scientific inquiry in this article? Where's the direct link, proving that GM mosquitoes are somehow "better" at carrying this virus? For that matter, where's the basica logic? If GM mosquitoes were responsible for the epidemic, the epicenter of the epidemic would be around the area they were released, not spattered linearly along a coastline 500 kilometers away. This is a totally normal distribution of an already endemic virus. I agree that GM bugs flying around is a scary thought, but fear can be combatted with information and diligent, RELEVANT research. All you're doing is fanning the flames. I hope whatever piddly sum you earned for writing this trite bullshit is worth your integrity.

    Post a Reply
  20. 1/3 of all people removed from Africa into the Americas was taken to the area that is now alleged to be the Epicentre of the Monstrous Zika Disease. 100% of All African people and their descendants in the Americas are NOW under THREAT from this Debilitating Disease …Coincidence or Conspiracy???

    Post a Reply
  21. Releasing MALE mosquitoes does not increase the likelihood of an outbreak, as male mosquitoes do not bite or transmit disease. I agree that more research should be done before releasing GMOs into the wild, but trying to relate these two instances is a stretch. The point of this article is to try to link the Zika outbreak and the release of GMO mosquitoes, and the article writer has failed to do that, except to relate them in time. Donald Trump is running for office in the US at the same time tiny-headed babies are being born in Brazil, therefore Trump's campaign has spread small-mindedness throughout the western hemisphere … Uh, no. Correlation does not equal causality. Claiming those of us who are calling this author out on his lack of rationale for his thesis are just "missing the point" is not at all correct. We're asking for a totally reasonable level of factual information regarding this purpored causation, and all the article proves is correlation, which is farily weak considering the long history of endimic Zika occurence in Brazil and the clear illustration that the eipcenter of the current outbreak (with the earlierst and highest case incidence) is along the coast, i.e. warm estuaries, which would be expected with any mosquito-borne illness.

    I think you're the one missing the point. I'm not arguing that releasing GMOs is a great idea, and it might be related, but this article does nothing but state the facts behind two events without actually connecting them. It's poor writing at best, intentionally misleading at worst and it's why publications like anti-media aren't taken seriously, which is a real shame for some of the better and more responsible writers.

    Post a Reply
  22. Rose Mead I didnt say catch all the mosquitoes. Just samples to prove whether or not gmo mosquitoes are reproducing

    Post a Reply
  23. Vanessa Bell I'm sorry Vanessa but just because the male mosquitoes do not bite or inject the disease themselves does not mean they are not adding to the spread of the disease. Did you read the article before making the comment or just assumed everything to be wrong?
    The author states "The particular strain of Oxitec GM mosquitoes, OX513A, are genetically altered so the vast majority of their offspring will die before they mature — though Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher published concerns in a report in September 2010 that a known survival rate of 3-4 percent warranted further study before the release of the GM insects. Her concerns, which were echoed by several other scientists both at the time and since, appear to have been ignored — though they should not have been.""Those genetically-modified mosquitoes work to control wild, potentially disease-carrying populations in a very specific manner. Only the male modified Aedes mosquitoes are supposed to be released into the wild — as they will mate with their unaltered female counterparts. Once offspring are produced, the modified, scientific facet is supposed to ‘kick in’ and kill that larvae before it reaches breeding age — if tetracycline is not present during its development. But there is a problem."Even absent this tetracycline, as Steinbrecher explained, a “sub-population” of genetically-modified Aedes mosquitoes could theoretically develop and thrive, in theory, “capable of surviving and flourishing despite any further” releases of ‘pure’ GM mosquitoes which still have that gene intact. She added, “the effectiveness of the system also depends on the [genetically-designed] late onset of the lethality. If the time of onset is altered due to environmental conditions … then a 3-4% [survival rate] represents a much bigger problem…”
    A 3-4% survival rate through the breeding stage. This would mean that through natural selection the genes that would resist the "cure" to the disease would begin to thrive, which would breed FEMALES resistant to the chemical that is supposed to kill them, and are spreading the disease.Do you understand why this is a problem? The author clearly dictates a number of points and problems that have occurred since these mosquitoes were released in the wild. Please explain to me Vanessa, if this plan was to be such a success as it was "expected" to be in July 2012, why are there more cases now more than ever? For when you are studying a potential "cure" i'm sorry to inform you but you are studying a CAUSAL relationship between the populations and the disease itself. To say correlation does not mean causation, in this instance, would be false.

    Post a Reply
  24. Have you conducted any personal research of your own? As in any kind of research studies? Not just reading articles on facebook and arguing invalid points for the sake of arguing, you state "Donald Trump is running for office in the US at the same time tiny-headed babies are being born in Brazil, therefore Trump's campaign has spread small-mindedness throughout the western hemisphere…" this quote serves no purpose, yet you relate this to what exactly? If you are conducting a study, and you implement that study on a population, you are studying the effects you altered is having on that population. You can, however, make the correlation that Donald Trump running for office is leading to tiny-minded people to hate and descriminate others based on race and gender. You see why that would make more sense? Because Trump promotes that message to his followers, and his followers take his beliefs in irrationally, and thus act in a manner in which they believe they are "better" than other groups of people. I don't believe I'm the one missing the point, I just don't understand what it is you're trying to argue.

    Post a Reply
  25. Ron Malone , wait a sec! this author states "a “sub-population” of genetically-modified Aedes mosquitoes COULD THEORETICALLY develop and thrive". so yeah, mosquitos dont die in early stage. so they live and reproduce. like ANY other mosquito. the resistance is developed only for the "unnatural" death. but it deos not mean that they get immunity to natural death or chemicals, etc. Plus, 2-3 % of survival is super small number!

    Post a Reply
  26. Simona Lau But they would have resistance to the chemical implemented.. it would be implementing a potential vaccine into a population, and such as stated, through natural selection would continuously reproduce and grow.

    Post a Reply
  27. Learnyour history otherwise we are doomed to repeat it… This leason has obviously been forgotten by some as well as ignored by others!!
    I will not even debate this insanity. What I will do is ask a simple question which in turn will highlight the insanity.
    Name 1 time man has released GMO anything without there being 1 negative aspect to it?
    Name 1 time man released a non-native species into the enviromment without 1 negative aspect to it?

    Post a Reply
  28. The arrow is placed more than 200km from Juazeiro. I'm not saying that the news is false, but it is at least inaccurate. I live in the nearby town of Petrolina (both are separated by the San Francisco river). To date there are only 8 cases of zika virus, with 5 cases of microcelafila in Petrolina and Juazeiro had 5 cases of microcephaly. This information about the infected are unofficial extract of news sites in the region.

    Post a Reply
  29. Well said Ron. I'm no scientist but I thought the article above was informative and shows the possible horrific implications of the realise of GMO mosquitos .. Vanessa cleary has issues of her own to bring Donald TRUMP, the man with a narrow vision, INTO THIS VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM THE WORLD IS FACING, CHILDREN born with microcephalon. Completely out of context and not funny!

    Post a Reply
  30. We're already drawning in the damn wild-type, all-natural, non-GM, imported-from-Africa mosquito here in Brazil, so a few surviving GM ones (IF the antibiotic idea pans out, although it seems pretty farfetched) would make zero difference and completely invalidate this idea, unless you show that: 1) there is enough tetracychline left in the environment to keep a stable population of GM mosquito going until a "subpopulation" that does not need the antibiotic develops; 2) the GM-mosquito is more competent at carrying the virus, VERY far and VERY fast; 3) a large amount of the mosquitoes in those areas with high amounts of microcephaly, or elsewhere really, are GM (trivial to do by anyone with basic molecular biology skills).

    Post a Reply
  31. Ron Malone What chemical implemented? What resistance? This is not round-up ready crops, this is a mosquito bred to die early.

    Post a Reply
  32. The information presented here is incorrect. Assuming the article tries to establish a connection between the release of the GM mosquito and Zika related Microcephaly cases, the geography is way off.

    There were two releases of the mosquito: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/dengue-fighting-mosquitoes-are-suppressing-wild-populations-brazil

    2011 in Itaberaba: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Itaberaba,+Juazeiro+-+BA,+Brazil/
    April 2015 in Piracicaba: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Piracicaba,+SP,+Brazil/

    Here is the map for Zika related Microcephaly cases: http://i.imgur.com/X284kJT.png, (extrated from page 7 of http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/zika-microcephaly-Brazil-rapid-risk-assessment-Nov-2015.pdf).

    As you can see the geographical proximity between the two is way off, not by cities, but by states. Thus it is improper to suspect these GM mosquitos have any relation to Zika related Microcephaly cases with the evidence presented in this article.

    Post a Reply
  33. Luba Petrusha, it is "tetracycline" from paragraphs 12-16 in the article. Did you read any part of the article before commenting?

    Post a Reply
  34. Vincent Maldia, the GM males reproduce with a higher than anticipated offpsring survival rate due to the tetracycline used by the farmers. And, the GM offspring flies more than 400 meters during their lifespan. Did you read and understand the article?

    Post a Reply
  35. They are more effective because the GM mosquitos are carriers that fly more than 400 meters during their lifespan and more of them survived than anticipated due to the use of tetracycline by the locals.

    Post a Reply
  36. Ron Malone The point that Vanessa raised is that nothing actually suggests the GM mosquitos are linked to the epidemic. You clearly missed that point since your following post contains a bunch of information that still fails to link those mosquitos to the epidemic. It's just a re-hash of the info already provided in the article and all it shows is that the GM mosquitos survived in the wild at a higher rate than anticipated. So what? Are they better at transmitting Zica than regular mosquitos? Did they somehow cause a mutation in the virus that's making it more likely to cause microencephaly? We don't actually have any data or facts presented here that suggest such a causal linkage. The whole article is pure speculation based on absolutely nothing and plays on people's fears and ignorance about GMOs.

    The article simply attempts to correlate the release of the mosquitos with the microencephaly problem but correlation does not equal causation, which is what Vanessa was pointing out with her comical comment about Trump. Furthermore, even their attempt at spatial and temporal correlation is wrong: First, the GM mosquitos were released in 2011 in Juazeiro. The 2014 releases were in another town way to the south in Sao Paulo state (which on the map shown has zero microencephaly cases). Second, the map there doesn't even point to Juazeiro, it points several hundred km to the north. Third, the map clearly shows that the highest incidence of microencephaly is along the coast, hundreds of kilometres away from both the real Juazeiro and even the fake one they point to on the map.

    Post a Reply
  37. ❥━━━❥Cash Job for every one❥━━━❥

    ᴍʏ Fʀɪᴇɴᴅ's ᴍᴏᴍ ᴍᴀᴋᴇs $73 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ using his Facebook Account.. Sʜᴇ ʜᴀs ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴏᴜᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ 7 ᴍᴏɴᴛʜs ʙᴜᴛ ʟᴀsᴛ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʜᴇʀ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴡᴀs $20864 ᴊᴜsᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ғᴏʀ ᴀ ғᴇᴡ ʜᴏᴜʀs.
    ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴍʏ sᴏᴜʀᴄᴇ ➤➤➤➤

    ­­­w­­w­­w.w­­ork­­on­­line44.c­­o­­m™­­­­­­

    ❥━━━—————-❥❥—————-━━━❥

    Post a Reply
  38. Lazar Konforti At what point in this article, or any of my previous statements, was it said that the GM caused the outbreak of Zika in this region? The author clearly points this out which you failed to see "When examining a rapidly expanding potential pandemic, it’s necessary to leave no stone unturned to possible solutions, as well as future prevention, will be as effective as possible." What you're arguing is that there is absolutely no chance the release of GM mosquitoes is linked to the outbreak, which this article simply points out the fallicy in those claims, that there is not only a designated survival rate, but under certain conditions can grow and fluorish as a sub-species. Is it a coincidence that, while the species of mosquito designated to kill these disease carrying mosquitoes not only had no effect, but in turn has increased in outbreaks? How do you know this sub-species isn't the cause of the outbreak? Simply, you don't. Which is again the point this article is making. The author also takes the time to point out "As the WHO stated in its press release, “conditions associated with this year’s El Nino weather pattern are expected to increase mosquito populations greatly in many areas,” which, in relation to your "map issues," and if you would take a 5 second search, it would indicate the primal breeding ground for mosquitoes would be on the coast, near water. Please tell me what my fears and ignorance of GMO's are. Have you done research on the long term effects GMO's have on the body, let alone our ecosystem? Or is it through sheer ignorance you claim any source proving the negative effects of GMO's to be disinformation?

    Post a Reply
  39. I like how the map where the frankensquitoes are supposed to have been released is completely void of zika outbreaks accordin to the other map.

    That's what I call a significant deviation to dumb conspiracy mumbojumbo claims

    Post a Reply
  40. I really enjoy how you inflate your biased predisposition out of pure unproven conspiracy claims.

    Did you also know that since gmos were introduced the amount of active sea pirates has decreased? Ergo, gmos make our oceans safer.

    Cool, thanks for the logic toll!

    Post a Reply
  41. Alan Savoy I suggest that you go back and read the article. No claim is made that the GM offspring can fly more than 400m.

    Post a Reply
  42. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's simply logical that with the failure rate for larval death so high, introducing GM mosquitoes to control the spread of a virus makes no sense. Yes, they might have killed the wild disease-carrying insects to a large extent, but even then – not completely.
    As for female GM mosquitoes not being released, Dr. Steinbrecher also raised serious concerns the method used to separate the males from females was faulty to begin with.
    The entire point of this article was not to raise some unfounded conspiracy theories, though undoubtedly some took it that way, but that hastily-applied science without thorough research can have rather alarming consequences – which is a conclusion I share with the scientists involved in the pre-trial research and implementation of this project.
    Incidentally, Oxitec now plans to fight the spread of Zika by introducing still more GM mosquitoes into the environment. Whether that will make the problem worse remains to be seen – but as you can tell, it certainly does nothing to solve the issue whatsoever.

    Post a Reply
  43. I am making $87hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprings for me, she recommended me to try it. You will lose nothing, just try it out on the following website.

    w­­­w­­­w.p­­­a­­­y-b­­­u­­­z­­­z.c­­­o­­­mCOPY THE LINK

    Post a Reply
  44. Erik Stenhammar Conspiracy theory? Where? Please read this statement from yet another source and explain to me where the "conspiracy theory" lies..
    One of the first questions that comes to mind is, what happens if one of the GM mosquitoes bites you? Will their GM DNA be injected into your arm or leg? Oxitec has counteracted this objection by stating they only plan to release male mosquitoes, which don’t bite.

    This again sounds good in theory… but in reality, sorting millions of insects according to sex is no small feat. And even FKMCD notes that although “every effort is made to release only males,” Oxitec trials show that .03 percent of the mosquitoes released are female.7

    So it’s not only males being released. If 3 million mosquitoes are released, as they were in the Caymans, data from Oxitec trials suggest about 900 of them will be female – and capable of biting. Even so, FKMCD states “there’s no difference between the bite of an Oxitec female and a wild one.”

    Also, the mosquitoes haven’t been around long enough to assume there will be no impacts. There are several glaring problems with assuming these GM bugs are safe for the human population. For starters:

    The potential exists for these genes, which hop from one place to another, to infect human blood by finding entry through skin lesions or inhaled dust. Such transmission could potentially wreak havoc with the human genome by creating "insertion mutations" and other unpredictable types of DNA damage.
    According to Alfred Handler, a geneticist at the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, mosquitoes can develop resistance to the lethal gene and might then be released inadvertently.
    Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, said 3.5 percent of the insects in a laboratory test survived to adulthood, despite presumably carrying the lethal gene.

    Tetracycline and other antibiotics are now showing up in the environment, in soil and surface water samples. These GM mosquitoes were designed to die in the absence of tetracycline (which is introduced in the lab in order to keep them alive long enough to breed).
    They were designed this way assuming they would NOT have access to that drug in the wild. With tetracycline exposure (for example, in a lake) these mutant insects could actually thrive in the wild, potentially creating a nightmarish scenario.

    At present, the use of GM insects is in its infancy. Not only are there no precedents from which to draw potential ecological consequences, but proper risk assessments have not been done – and quite possibly might be impossible to conduct, considering the many unknown aspects of tinkering with DNA and allowing it to mingle with other species. In a study published in Ecology and Evolution, researchers attempted to identify potential ecological effects of GM insects, and revealed many along with important knowledge gaps.

    They wrote:13

    “The effects may occur in two phases: a transitory phase when the focal population changes in density, and a steady state phase when it reaches a new, constant density… Our methodology reveals many potential effects in each phase, perhaps most notably those dealing with immunity in the transitory phase, and with pathogen and vector evolution in the steady state phase. Importantly, this framework identifies knowledge gaps in mosquito ecology.

    …For instance, in evaluating GE mosquitoes, the knowledge gaps in mosquito ecology are striking… particularly with respect to mosquito effects on consumer and resource species. Data and theory on ecological hysteresis in insect communities are also lacking, which makes it difficult to assess whether any changes are irreversible.”

    Post a Reply
  45. Vincent Maldia, you are making the assumption that after multiple generations and cross-breeding, that gene is still active. Given the unstable nature of GM and genetic migration along with natural selection and changes to the anticipated environment that this would still be functional.

    Post a Reply
  46. The key point here (according to the article) is that the mosquito cannot fly more than 400 meters – so one has to ask – unless they are caught and transported to other locations, then the likelyhood of them reaching the Americas would be remote. The next logical question then becomes – is this yet another attempt by the governments to force vaccinations onto an unsuspecting public? Remember the H1N1 "pandemic" whereby the CDC attempted to make it seem like a pandemic existed – that is until one started checking the facts – and then — ooops! Guess they were wrong. This is not the first attempt by the government or the CDC to force vaccinate the populace with deadly vaccines that are loaded with adjuvants – some of which cause the bodies own immune system to attack itself (look up synthetic squalene). Does this virus exists – more than likely it does! Is it a "pandemic" – yet to be seen. Will the government attempt to force vaccinate the populace? Hide and watch. NEVER trust a governemnt agency who claims to have the "best interest" of the populace at heart. Just saying!!!!!

    Post a Reply
  47. I think it's long past time to stop playing God…This is a perfect example of arrogant man just making a situation worse by intervening with ignorance…

    Post a Reply
  48. Alan Savoy and you are making the assumption that the gene will be inactivated. Also if the flourescence gene can be inactivated then the active part of the modification which causes death of larvae can also be inactivated. AFAIK those two genes are linked in the mosquito

    besides, with todays tech ala CSI, it would be relatively easy to sequence the DNA of a captured non glowing mosquito and determine if it does have the part that causes larval death but has a mutated inactivated flourescence gene

    Post a Reply
  49. Ron Malone You've only managed to re-iterate the problem i'm pointing out. The article says that "there is an alarming possibility to consider". Well, yes, there are plenty, actually. Including aliens. However, there is no evidence pointing to aliens. There is also no evidence pointing to the GM mosquitos. You've again only re-stated that the mosquitos survived at a higher rate than anticipated. Even if the genetic motification entirely fails, then they become just like regular mosquitos. When they article says that they might survive and "thrive", that's only RELATIVE to their expected survival rate of 2-3%. In other words, if the modification fails entirely, the GM mosquitos will become at best exactly like other mosquitos. Nothing suggests that they will become superior vectors of disease relative to other mosquitos.

    "What you're arguing is that there is absolutely no chance the release of GM mosquitoes is linked to the outbreak and spread of the disease"
    No, not at all. I'm pointing out that there's no evidence as of now (or at leasts not presented in this article) that these GM mosquitos are linked to the outbreak and spread of the disease. All this article establishes is that these mosquitos exist. That's it, that's all. Nothing about whether, upon surviving, they become more efficient carriers of the virus, nor if maybe their mutation somehow helped the virus mutate into a more dangerous strain. The mere existence of these mosquitos not only doesn't prove that they've been a factor in the outbreak, it doesn't even suggest that they could be. That's where the fear of GMOs comes in. If it wasn't for an emotional pre-dispostion against GMOs, the lack of logical argumentation would be apparent. But instead, people buy into the causality suggested by this article.

    "which this article simply points out the fallicy in those claims,"
    No, it doesn't. As I said above, it merely points out that these mosquitos exist. It hasn't offered an iota of evidence that the mutation in these mosquitos somehow makes them better carriers than your average non-GM Aedes Aegypti.

    "Again I'd like to reitterate a point the author is making, that it is near impossible to control the potential harmful effects of GMO's once they are released into an environment, and that necessary research must be conducted before releasing a potential disaster on a population"
    I fully agree. It could very well be that these mosquitos had something to do with it, but the author doesn't even bother to try and speculate how. Thus the suggestion of causal linkage remains about as credible as what Vanessa said about Trump. The way science works is that you test a hypothesis. But there are infinite possible hypotheses to test. You have to pick one that, given our current knowledge, is plausible. With the information we have now, there is nothing that even suggests the tTav gene could be causing microcephaly.

    "Let me finish by asking you this, if you gave somebody a vaccine and years later the person breaks out with the same disease they were supposed to be vaccinated against, do you believe that to be coincidence or that the vaccine not only didn't do it's job, but potentially led to the outbreak itself?"
    I would first believe that the vaccine failed to do it's job. I would then consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the diseas to develop because I know that some vaccines are weakend virus strains and thus could infect a healthy person via that mechanism. This is where the article fails. It doesn't even suggest how these mosquitos could be linked to the outbreak. So, if we re-take your scenario, if a person who got the vaccine later got infected by the disease they were vaccinated against, this article is ignoring the plausible solution and saying "well, you also drank milk four years ago, that *could* be what's causing it, let's make a headline out of it".

    Post a Reply
  50. Lazar Konforti How can you say there is NO evidence the GMO mosquito is impacting the population? What factual evidence do you base your information off of? How long ago were these GM mosquitoes implemented to stop the breakout of the Zika virus? What are the life expectancies for an average mosquito? How often do mosquitoes reproduce? Please take time to research information before trying to make an argument based on fallacy. You just stated "It doesn't even suggest how these mosquitos could be linked to the outbreak" really? How does it not? Is this all based on coincidence? Do you understand how natural selection works? Do you understand how genetic engineering works? All you're doing right now is proving the ignorace surrounding the use of GMOs. You even stated yourself "I would first believe that the vaccine failed to do it's job. I would then consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the diseas to develop because I know that some vaccines are weakend virus strains and thus could infect a healthy person via that mechanism." What you just stated proves my point entirely. If the vaccine didn't work, then it can be derived that it would lead to the outbreak itself. Please Lazar explain to me how this is not the same type of scenario? How is it, that although average male mosquitoes have a life expectancy of 10 days, this outbreak is still occurring? You and Vanessa both brought up arguments that hold no value here. You brought up milk and aliens while vanessa brought up Trump, which serves no purpose. Bringing in an outside variable that would have no substantial effect on the control group is meaningless and adds to the ignorance. Yes you're right obviously "aliens" have no implication in this argument unless these aliens were transmitting life-threatening diseases and we produced our own genetically modified alien that would serve to kill them. Then we would study the effect our genetically modified alien and come to the realization the aliens we're producing may be contributing to the problem themselves. Please conduct more research before blindly arguing points you seem to not understand.

    You also state here"Even if the genetic motification entirely fails, then they become just like regular mosquitos. When they article says that they might survive and "thrive", that's only RELATIVE to their expected survival rate of 2-3%. In other words, if the modification fails entirely, the GM mosquitos will become at best exactly like other mosquitos. Nothing suggests that they will become superior vectors of disease relative to other mosquitos." Under what pretense do you derive the notion that these mosquitoes will be exactly like normal mosquitoes? Do you also understand what that survival rate means? Let's say hypothetically speaking, out of 1000 mosquitoes, 20-30 survive til adulthood and are able to reproduce. Those 20-30 that survived were able to survive and pass on their genes to their offspring. Those offspring (with immunity) then go on and produce more offspring, and more offspring and so forth. Then soon enough you have a new population of mosquitoes carrying the same deadly virus to replace the old population of mosquitoes that were killed off, however now these types of mosquitoes are immune to the effects of other GM mosquitoes that are still being added to the population. So then what? How do you propose we stop the spread of the epidemic then? Adding more mosquitoes? Creating a different kind of mosquito that would only lead to the same result? I guess you don't really worry about that, you're too busy arguing points that hold no ground.

    Post a Reply
  51. Vanessa Bell Did you even read the article? The gm male mosquitoes are breeding with the unmodified mosquitoes, and the larvae are supposed to die, but they aren't. The offspring MAY be the cause (or may not) of the spread. This article is suggesting it's a good possibility and that we should look into it.

    Post a Reply
  52. Lazar Konforti "Nothing suggests that they will become superior vectors of disease relative to other mosquitos." False statement based on what eactly? Please conduct research on the effects of genetic modification.

    Post a Reply
  53. Alan Savoy Where does it say that the GM mosquitos can fly more than 400m? There is nothing that suggests that the GM mosquitos are in any way superior vectors of the disease. All it says is that they didn't die off at the expected rate. They still die off more than non-GM mosquitos, so based on the information provided here, they're a less efficient vector than regular non-GM mosquitos.

    Post a Reply
  54. Nothing in this article even suggests that these mosquitos had an impact on the natural spread or symtoms/long-term effects of the virus. The only thing that makes the suggested causality plausible in people's minds is their emotional aversion to GMOs. I'm not discounting the possibility that the GM mosquitos had something to do with it, but I don't see any fact-based or even logical argument in this article as to why such a causality would be plausible. How could the mutated gene make the GM mosquitos more efficient vectors of the Zika virus (the facts presented here actually point to the contrary)? Or how could it make the virus more likely to cause microcephaly? There needs to be some kind of plausible explantion before you even start testing such a hypothesis.

    And as another testament to the shoddy journalism evident in this piece, I'd like to point out that the map points several hundred km to the north of the town of Juazeiro. Also, as another commenter pointed out, the trial in Juazeiro happened in 2011, not 2014 (see here: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/dengue-fighting-mosquitoes-are-suppressing-wild-populations-brazil , and here: http://www.nature.com/news/brazil-tests-gm-mosquitoes-to-fight-dengue-1.10426 ). The 2014 trial happened thousands of kilometres to the south in the state of Sao Paolo, very far indeed from the Zika/microcephaly outbreak in the northeastern states.

    Post a Reply
  55. Ron Malone False statement? How so? It's easy to show whether or not my statement is false. Please re-read the article and point out in the article where it suggests a plausible explanation for how the GM-mosquitos are accelerating the spread of the virus or accentuating its effects.

    Post a Reply
  56. Ron Malone (part 1) "How can you say there is NO evidence the GMO mosquito is impacting the population? What factual evidence do you base your information off of?"

    I base it on the information provided in this article. If a plausible hypothesis as to how this GM mosquito population is accelerating the spread of the virus or accentuating its effects is contained in the article, kindly poiunt it out. The article does state that the GMO mosquito larvae have a 15% survival rate, which actually suggests they're reducing overall mosquito populations and hence slowing the spread of the virus.

    "How long ago were these GM mosquitoes implemented to stop the breakout of the Zika virus? What are the life expectancies for an average mosquito? How often do mosquitoes reproduce? Please take time to research information before trying to make an argument based on fallacy."

    In 2011. Mosquito life cycles vary from one species to another and depend on environmental conditions. They can be as short as four days and as long as a month. Typically a female would lay three 'litters' in her lifetime. I don't see how this information is helping your argument though. I did also read that larval survial rates are around 80%, which makes this GM-mosquito pretty good at reducing populations even if its survival rate is far higher than expected.

    "You just stated "It doesn't even suggest how these mosquitos could be linked to the outbreak" really? How does it not?"

    If it does, then please point it out. All the articel says is that there are GM-mosquitos in the region. That's called a correlation. And unless we have a plausible hypothesis to explain how this particular mutation could be accelerating the spread of the virus or accentuating its effects, then we have nothing to go on.

    "Is this all based on coincidence?"

    Unless you have a plausible explanation for the causality you suggest, then yes, it remains just a correlation, much like the rise in Trump's popularity or the reduction of sea pirates and climate change.

    "Do you understand how natural selection works? Do you understand how genetic engineering works? All you're doing right now is proving the ignorace surrounding the use of GMOs."

    I am no expert on mosquito reprodcution or genetic engineering. However, I do have a basic understanding of how it works. I also have a pretty good understanding of how the sceintific method works, which apparently you don't. What's missing here is a plausible explanation for the causal relationship. For example, is there reson to believe that the mutated gene could have somehow led the virus to mutate and become more virulent? Or is there reason to believe that the GM mosquitos are somehow more effective at injecting humans with the virus? I don't know if these are plausible hypotheses because i'm no mosquito genetic engineering expert. However, if you want to suggest a causal relationship, you have to be able to provide some theory, based on established science, that could explain it. This article does not do that. Again, it just states that the GM-mosquitos exist. Why she thinks they might might have accentuated the outbreak or its effects is conveniently left out. If you're any more knowledgable than me or the author about mosquitos, Zika, and the tTAV gene, please let me know what could be the causal link here. As I said above, I'm open to hearing it, I just don't see it in this article, nor anywhere in your posts.

    Post a Reply
  57. Ron Malone (part 2) "You even stated yourself "I would first believe that the vaccine failed to do it's job. I would then consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the diseas to develop because I know that some vaccines are weakend virus strains and thus could infect a healthy person via that mechanism." What you just stated proves my point entirely.If the vaccine didn't work, then it can be derived that it would lead to the outbreak itself. Please Lazar explain to me how this is not the same type of scenario?"

    Because getting sick from the injection of a live virus is a plausible causal explanation. If the vaccine is just based on protein shells rather than a live virus, then this explanation becomes bogus and I have to look for another plausible explanation before I start testing my hypotheses. A plausible explanation is what's lacking in the article. As I said, I could suggest that my friend got sick from drinking milk. It might be true, but unless I have some plausible explanation as to how milk could have given him, say, Hepatitis, it's pointless to even make the suggestion. This is the scenario occuring int his article.

    "How is it, that although average male mosquitoes have a life expectancy of 10 days, this outbreak is still occurring?"

    Because mosquitos lay eggs. You think Malaria just died off within 10 days of its first appearance? No, it's still around. So is Zika. I think I'm starting to see where your confusion comes from. Aedes Aegypti was present in Brazil long before the GM variety was introduced. It's not like they introduced a Zika carrier in a zone where there wasn't any to begin with. They introduced them in a region where they are endemic. Also, they didn't introduce GM-mosquitos infected with the Zika virus. That's not how population control works. If the survival rate of mosquitos that carry this mutant gene is indeed 15% as this article states, then it follows that existing Aedes Aegypti populations were reduced.

    "You and Vanessa both brought up arguments that hold no value here. You brought up milk and aliens while vanessa brought up Trump, which serves no purpose. Bringing in an outside variable that would have no substantial effect on the control group is meaningless and adds to the ignorance. Yes you're right obviously "aliens" have no implication in this argument unless these aliens were transmitting life-threatening diseases and we produced our own genetically modified alien that would serve to kill them. Then we would study the effect our genetically modified alien and come to the realization the aliens we're producing may be contributing to the problem themselves. Please conduct more research before blindly arguing points you seem to not understand."

    This is not a question of "research". I threw out a deliberatly implausible explanation to make a point. I wasn't stating facts that I had arrived at myslef through experimentation, nor were we debating any facts at all. We're debating the validity of the logic behind the argument. Once again, why do you think it's possible that a mosquito variety with a below-average survival rate is accentuating the Zika epidemic? And no, "GMOs are bad, m'kay" is not a valid answer.

    "You also state here"Even if the genetic motification entirely fails, then they become just like regular mosquitos. When they article says that they might survive and "thrive", that's only RELATIVE to their expected survival rate of 2-3%. In other words, if the modification fails entirely, the GM mosquitos will become at best exactly like other mosquitos. Nothing suggests that they will become superior vectors of disease relative to other mosquitos." Under what pretense do you derive the notion that these mosquitoes will be exactly like normal mosquitoes?"

    Because nothing suggests that they won't. If it does, please point it out in the article. The gene that they modified inhibits larval development. If larval development does occur normally, then their mutation is a dud. You're speculating that the mutation might have some unforseen effect on the spread of a virus. Please use your existing knowledge of this particularl mutant gene to provide a plausible hypothesis to test. If you can do it, congratulations, I'll consider it. But no such plausible hypothesis is put forth in this article, which is my original point.

    Post a Reply
  58. David Gibson Besides zika isn't even that deadly. It's 20 times or more less risky to the health of people aged 5-70 than dengue.

    Post a Reply
  59. Ron Malone (part 3) "Do you also understand what that survival rate means? Let's say hypothetically speaking, out of 1000 mosquitoes, 20-30 survive til adulthood and are able to reproduce."

    Ok, that's far lower than the normal survival rate. So far so good, we've prevented the birth of 970-980 mosquitos. Yay!
    "Those 20-30 that survived were able to survive and pass on their genes to their offspring."

    Ok, so the ones that survive either 1) did not inherit the killer mutant gene, making them normal mosquitos, in which case the story ends there, or 2) survived because of the tetracyline in the environment, so let's go on with your story… oh, wait, you don't even take it in that direction.

    "Those offspring (with immunity)"

    Wait, immunity to what? To Zika? All Aedes Aegypti are immune to Zika, it's a disease that affects humans, not mosquitos. They just carry it. Or do you mean 'immune' to the genetic mutation? Then you appear to know much less about genetics than I do. An organism is not 'immune' to a gene, it's either expressed or not expressed. Unless this is a recessive gene (this is not mentioned in the article but it's very unlikely since it doesn't make sense for a population control initiative to be based on a recessive gene), the fact that they survived means that they don't have the gene, period. They inherited their mom's non-mutant genes. They are no longer mutants. End of story. It is actually a bit more complex than that but the basics are there.

    "then go on and produce more offspring, and more offspring and so forth. Then soon enough you have a new population of mosquitoes carrying the same deadly virus to replace the old population of mosquitoes that were killed off"

    Ok, so now, at worst, we're where we started.

    "however now these types of mosquitoes are immune to the effects of other GM mosquitoes that are still being added to the population."

    Fisrt, as I said above, they are not "immune" to a gene, they either have it or they don't. Reproducing with a mosquito that has the gene would still carry a chance of passing that gene onto their offspring and preventing their development. Second, who's still adding mosquitos to the population? Where are you getting this from? Pulling assumptions out of the nether regions of your digestive tract is not a solid foundation for your argument. This was a one-off trial. They did another one in 2014 in a completely different part of Brazil.

    "So then what? How do you propose we stop the spread of the epidemic then? Adding more mosquitoes?"

    Clearly not, why would we try the same failed plan twice? And as I said in a previous post, I'm no fan of perturbing ecosystems. I don't know why you think I would suggest that.

    "Creating a different kind of mosquito that would only lead to the same result? I guess you don't really worry about that, you're too busy arguing points that hold no ground."

    You're making far too many assumptions about my character here that aren't based on anything I've said. I have not made any kind of gung-ho pro-GMO statement, I have simply pointed to the obvious gap in logic that links this GM-mosquito test run in 2011 to the current outbreak of microencephaly-causing Zika.

    "Please read my previous comments before arguing points that have already been made."
    You've failed to make a coherent point. Sorry. You're just re-iterating the same story as the article: correlation without a hint of causation. Given the low survival rate, we can logically assume that there's been a net decrease in the local population of Aedes Aegypti. You appear to be assuming that 1) the lack of gene expression is analogous to immunity to a virus; and b) that the company is continuously pumping lab-bred mosquitos into the environment, thus leading to a net increase in disease-carrying mosquitos. Both your assumptions are sadly erroneous, and are definitely not borne out by the facts presented in this article.

    Good night.

    Post a Reply
  60. Actually, they marked the wrong city of Juazeiro (the map points to Juazeiro /do Norte/ in southern Ceará). But still, its area around the Sobradinho reservoir in the state of Bahia has few cases of zika. The GM mosquitoes were released in 2011.

    The 2014 release took place in the state of São Paulo, which has no cases.

    Post a Reply
  61. The 2014 release was made in the city of Piracicaba, of strong Italian, American and Portuguese heritage.

    Post a Reply
  62. Calm the fuck down, the troops are there to destroy or seal artificial microlakes created by trash and urban construction..

    Post a Reply
  63. Alan Savoy And people hate Brazilians because of the Amazon deforestation… Not that I have any sympathy for rich settler colonialist landlords stealing pristine Indigenous land, but truly it's the same mentality everywhere.

    Post a Reply
  64. Oh my God, mosquitoes have literally little to no environmental purpose and Aedes aegypti isn't even autochtonous to Brazil.

    Post a Reply
  65. No, it won't. If Zika gets out of control it will actually be wonderful to disabled people, who will get more governmental and social attention due to our huge numbers, and it will push African and Latin American societies to finally recognize the legalization of abortion. Which is fucking deserved and far past the time. See: http://www.wired.com/2016/01/abortion-and-zika-south-america/
    http://www.vocativ.com/news/275592/el-salvador-pregnancy-ban

    It only harms humans who are still embryos or fetuses, not people – its health effects on people aged 5-70 are some 20 times milder than dengue.

    Post a Reply
  66. Simona Lau In regards to the sub-population – it is possible for a small population to develop spontaeous mutation(s) that promote their survival. And the effects of epigenetics including the possible exposure to tetracycline.

    Post a Reply
  67. Vanessa Bell the surviving males mate and produce females within a few weeks which contain the GM DNA.

    Post a Reply
  68. Read my comment…I said NOTHING about "release". Look at the map…iT it shows the 'prevalence' area; e.g. Bahia. Some people, here, are speculating that the problem came-about as a result of ‘GM Mosquitos release’…I am NOT. I am dealing the FACT that ZIKA “exist” in the (said) area.

    Post a Reply
  69. 2 babies who subsequently died, were found to have zika, so what? Never proven to cause anything really. 4,000 of the 4,000 microcephalic babies, and the 1200 still being born each month, do have something in common. ALL OF THEM WERE PART OF A VACCINATED BEFORE BIRTH TRIAL…………. All the pregnant mothers in Brazil began getting dtap (which IS NOT RECOMMENDED IN PREGNANCY), they all started getting jabbed around May……………… babies went from 0 problems, in women not vaccinated, to suddenly 1200 per month or more, in the vaccinated mothers.

    They are trying this ridiculous experiment, as babies given vaccinated at birth die. People vaccinated with the failed acellular vaccine in use since 1998, are now carriers of pertussis, no symptoms. The vaccinated herd, meant to protect those vulnerable from pertussis (newborn babies), are now infecting newborn babies, the whole herd have pertussis, without symptoms. The vaccine fails after about 5 years, thus the outbreaks in FULLY VACCINATED kids, that happens around age 6-12……… despite them all being fully vaccinated. The obvious solution? stop vaccinating, in 5 years, very few vaccinated carriers left. No more seemingly healthy herd, spreading pertussis everywhere.

    WHO< and GSK, and bureaucracy, dont tell the truth, the references are all on the net. So what do they do, to stop the vaccinated, with no symptoms, infecting their own babies. Cant vaccinate newborns, they die……………. so these madmen decide to vaccinate babies at 20 weeks gestation, hoping they can vaccinated them before birth, so the babies own vaccinated families will not be able to infect them when they are born………………. Outcome? what would you expect, vaccinating a 22 week gestational baby, with a vaccine, that kills them, if given at birth?

    Post a Reply
  70. The mosquitos are irrelevant, no studies have linked them to birth defects. These mossies have done no damage to anyone ever. However ALL THE BABIES WITH MICROCEPHALY IN BRAZIL, got vaccinated at around 20 weeks, gestation. Yes brand new experiment, begun in MAY, to try prevaccinating babies before birth for whooping cough…………… The reason for whooping cough outbreaks and baby deaths recently? The new gmo vaccine, is not only a total failure after about 5 years, 100% failure after 10 years, but those vaccine immune, dont catch pertussis, THEY JUST CARRY IT AND SPREAD IT. Yes, vaccinated family members are now known to be the cause, of all the baby deaths………. They dont even know they have the virus in their throats, and of course, all they need to do, is get a throat swab.

    Instead? Cant vaccinate babies at birth to protect them from their own vaccinated, carrier family…………………. vaccination at birth, kills babies………. so instead, they try vaccinating them before birth? there is true evil in this world, called WHO, CDC,FDA, total absolute corruption………….. as for GSK, and their murders? they get to sell more vaccines, and now are the ones with the zika virus vaccine, on the way………… How, how obscene.

    Post a Reply
  71. Who gives a damn about a few zika mossies? They cause no damage. However vaccinating babies at 20 weeks gestation, which began in all pregnant mothers in May, yes that bloody big mossie called hypodermic GSK, yep what damage that vaccine giant mosquito has done!

    Post a Reply
  72. And if I refuse to logically assess the data, I don't have to believe it. Ockham's Razor works well in this scenario.

    Post a Reply
  73. Angela Coral Eisenhauer well there's some evidence that zika is linked to those microcephalic babies. Even if the link is proven later to be false those mosquitoes spread other diseases that kill a lot of people

    As for vaccines, yes there is a small percentage of vaccines that cause side effects just like any other medication but the benefits greatly outweigh the risk.

    If you have scientific evidence to the contrary lets hear it

    Post a Reply
  74. True gmo whooping cough vaccine 1998, absolute failure. Now those vaccinated are carriers WITH NO SIGNS OF ILLNESS. Mothers, siblings, fully vaccinated, no illness, now infect their own babies.
    What do they do? cant be honest about the failure…. and all the baby deaths being caused BECAUSE OF THE FAILED VACCINE. Cant vaccinate babies as they die, so in May, they began vaccinating EVERY PREGNANT WOMEN IN BRAZIL, an attempt to vaccinate babies before birth, so when born they would not catch pertussis from their vaccinated family (who have no obvious symptoms)…………….. Outcome, May +6 months,is around October. Bang 1200 microcephalic babies per month…………………………………. and they blaming a mossie? geez that mutant mozzie moved damn fast!

    Post a Reply
  75. Read the first honest references. Zika found in 2 babies……….., so what? All of the microcephalic babies did have one thing in common. All were vaccinated before birth with dtap vaccine. Every pregnant woman in Brazil, got dtap starting MAY . Suddenly 6 months later, first births of vaccinated mothers………….. 1200 babies per month born with same deformity. Mossies, spreading virus, who cares? so you might be 1 in 5 who actually feel crook for a day or two……..THAT IS ZIKA> WHO CARES? I care that the fact babies are being born deformed, is because of a stupid experiment to attempt to vaccinate babies before birth, with a damn vaccine that kills them, if given directly after birth?

    Post a Reply
  76. Luís Guilherme Exactly………………………. RED HERRING! SPOT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM………… ALL OF THE BABIES BORN WITH MICROCEPHALY, WERE VACCINATED BEFORE 22 WEEKS GESTATION…………. ie all pregnant mothers in Brazil, began getting dtap in MAY! 100% of the babies born with microcephaly, their mothers got dtap, it began in MAY!

    Post a Reply
  77. David Gibson 4000 disabled babies, and 1200 every month, will be born or terminated between now and July………… They started the vaccination of all pregnant mothers in Brazil with dtap in MAY,, they removed the suspect vaccine end of December……………. 100% of the babies got vaccinated in utero, before 20 weeks gestation…. If anyone thinks that a vaccine, that kills babies if given at birth, is not going to harm them before they are born????????????? Madmen, called GSK< CDC<FDA< WHO

    Post a Reply
  78. GM mosquitos and zika outbreak, all irrelevant, as the zika disease is harmless…………. Vaccinating all pregnant women with an experimental vaccine, between May and the vaccines withdrawal end of December? Yes, lots of microcephalic babies. dtap given to newborn babies kills them, wow, look what happens when you give it to babies who are less than 20 weeks gestation……………. vaccintion were started May, look what happens in October, when the babies start being born? Suddenly 1200 babies per month born vaccine damaged.

    Post a Reply
  79. Hi Vanessa, mossies dont cause microcephaly in babies, vaccinating babies before birth, does cause vaccine damaged babies. dtap started on every pregnant mother in may, suddenly babies start being born october. Vaccine withdrawn late December, got another 7 months of microcephalic babies. (or termination).

    Post a Reply
  80. Who cares about zika? It harms no one………… Vaccinating all pregnant mothers, starting May in Brazil, yep come suddenly in October 1200 vaccine damaged babies per month.

    Post a Reply
  81. Zika virus hurts no one………………….. attempting to vaccinate all babies in utero yes, causes 1200 vaccine damaged babies per month…….. Every pregnant woman in Brazil, became part of this absurd experiment in May, their babies started being born in October……………… Bang, no microcephaly, pre vaccinated mothers, post vaccinated mothers, vaccine damaged babies.

    Post a Reply
  82. Angela Coral Eisenhauer Dose it also affect brain development in human embryos ??

    Post a Reply
  83. Angela Coral Eisenhauer \ Every pregnant woman in Brazil, got dtap starting MAY \

    then why is (according to the map on this article) the microcephaly epidemic not nationwide?

    Post a Reply
  84. Alan Savoy \he GM males reproduce with a higher than anticipated offpsring survival rate due to the tetracycline used by the farmers\

    the gmo mosquitoes have a flourescent marker. So it would be very easy to catch wild mosquitoes, separate out the females and see if they flouresce. If confirmed, that would be hard evidence that GM mosquitoes survive. Is there any evidence like that?

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *