Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday February 15 2016, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the debugging-gone-wrong? dept.

The Zika Virus is triggering all sorts of fear in much of the warmer areas of south and central America, and recently spreading to the US via semen of a man who visited the area. (There are only 31 cases of the virus being found in the US to-date, all from travelers.)

The fear is caused by linkage to microcephaly birth defects, but so far the science behind that linkage is unproven.
The World Health Organization is becoming alarmed:

"The level of concern is high, as is the level of uncertainty," WHO’s director general Dr. Margaret Chan said. "We need to get some answers quickly."

Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder that can lead to life-threatening paralysis also seems to be linked with the Zika.

But this isn't the first outbreak of the Zika virus. Its been around for decades. And prior outbreaks did not exhibit any linkage to Microcephaly or Guillain-Barre.

[Continues.]

There are now articles starting to appear that link the microcephaly with something that has an actual scientific cause of birth defects. And these articles are pointing to another Monsanto product.

According to one news site the birth defects may be due to a chemical larvicide component used by the Brazilian Ministry of Health against Aedes (mosquitoes).

Original Portuguese article here.

Google Translation here

“Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them. It acts as an insect juvenile hormone or juvenoid, and has the effect of inhibiting the development of adult insect characteristics (for example, wings and mature external genitalia) and reproductive development. It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects).

“Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added pyriproxyfen to drinking water is not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on Zika virus for this damage, while trying to ignore its responsibility and ruling out the hypothesis of direct and cumulative chemical damage caused by years of endocrine and immunological disruption of the affected population,” according to the report by Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:11PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:11PM (#305173) Journal

    Yes, but the only way to see how it affects pregnant women when it's in the water supply is to have it in the water supply of pregnant women.

    My point is that there's other ways for pregnant women to ingest this chemical such as using it in the house to kill fleas.

  • (Score: 2) by basicbasicbasic on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:17PM

    by basicbasicbasic (411) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:17PM (#305210)

    Exposure isn't all or nothing, though; occasional exposure to a substance through infrequent skin contact or inhaling is very different to prolonged continuous exposure through drinking it, bathing in it, and cooking food in it.

    If there is a period during pregnancy when a foetus is susceptible to pyriproxyfen then a mother has a much higher chance of being affected by it then if it is constantly in her system from drinking it every day than if she occasionally uses some flea powder that contains it.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:31PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:31PM (#305217) Journal

      Exposure isn't all or nothing, though; occasional exposure to a substance through infrequent skin contact or inhaling is very different to prolonged continuous exposure through drinking it, bathing in it, and cooking food in it.

      Or putting it in your carpet.

      • (Score: 2) by basicbasicbasic on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:34PM

        by basicbasicbasic (411) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:34PM (#305219)

        I'll have to agree to differ with you that putting something on your carpet is the same as drinking it.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:15PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:15PM (#305298) Journal

          I'll have to agree to differ with you that putting something on your carpet is the same as drinking it.

          I don't really see the difference myself. It doesn't matter how it gets used once it gets in your body. Instead, it matters how much gets into your body. Dose makes the poison. And I wouldn't buy that small continual doses are worse than large short term doses. This doesn't sound like a toxin that accumulates in the body.