29 ms·

tldr: it wasn't the oil: "without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic"

tldr: it wasn't the oil: "without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic" (This relates to the separate NYP post about phony food, which says "Fake olive oil...has killed people...more than 20,000 people were poisoned in Spain...")

cies 10y ago
Just like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. The last line of the article is most telling indeed: > "Under no circumstances should the general public be informed." This is the main problem. We would all be much more selective when it comes to our food if we knew how flaky the quality is. But instead we trust the gov't in controlling the food supply; which the quote shows we should not be doing.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  > Just like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. You're making a claim here that pretty radically departs from scientific consensus. Do you have any background information on where you read this/how you determined this?
  - cies 10y ago
    Sure (sorry for not backing it up in the first place): http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microcephaly-zika-connection-blame-monsanto-linked-pesticide-birth-defects/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microce... Only days after a list of articles claiming no link with pesticides were published, here a link to one of them: http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto-linked-pesticide-is-to-blame-for-microcephaly-outbreak-not-zika http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto... I'm quite close to some people in academic virology and they also were not to keen on calling for a Zika outbreak.
    - steve19 10y ago
      A study published in The Lancet found a strong connection between Zika and microcephaly in fetuses in French Polynesia http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00651-6/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
      - divbyzer0 10y ago
        The main point of the article is that scientific & regulatory community was led by profit and not in the "spirit of disinterested inquiry". From the article: The original study on which the oil theory is founded, by Dr Juan Tabuenca Oliver, was published in the Lancet Also from the article: they concluded that, without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic. The organo-phosphorous chemicals would indeed cause the range of symptoms observed by clinicians. Getting published in The Lancet does not prove anything. eg MMR vacine\autism. The article is well worth a read.
        heliumcraft 10y ago
        That may be so, but I'll take The Lancet over thefreethoughtproject.com, natural news and random conspiracy internet websites any day.
    - jnbiche 10y ago
      OK, you've implied or linked to some significantly different claims here: 1. That there is no Zika outbreak / outbreak of Zika-like symptoms (this seems irrefutably wrong and as far as I know even the typical conspiracy theorist sites aren't claiming this much). 2. That the symptoms of Zika are in fact caused by the organo-phosphate pesticide Pyriproxyfen (Zika has been a recognized viral illness just like others e.g. Dengue for at least 50 years, predating the widepread use of organo-phosphates in Brazil, so this also is very, very unlikely). 3. That the microencephaly in babies borne to mothers with Zika, that is being attributed to the Zika virus, is in fact caused by Pyriproxyfen (for epidemiological reasons [1], this seems very unlikely but it cannot be ruled out at this point). By the way, your second source didn't seem terribly bad, and assumed an appropriate amount of skepticism toward the claims in question. Your first source, written by an "political analyst" currently pursuing a global affairs degree, and with no apparent scientific credentials, wasn't as convincing. Are any of the academic virologists you're referring to on public record with their skepticism about the Zika outbreak? 1. In the three cities reporting the most cases — Recife, Jaboatao and Paulista — pyriproxyfen is not in use, according to: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/467138913/did-a-pesticide-cause-microcephaly-in-brazil-unlikely-say-experts http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/46713891....

cies 10y ago

Just like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. The last line of the article is most telling indeed: > "Under no circumstances should the general public be informed." This is the main problem. We would all be much more selective when it comes to our food if we knew how flaky the quality is. But instead we trust the gov't in controlling the food supply; which the quote shows we should not be doing.

jnbiche 10y ago
> Just like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. You're making a claim here that pretty radically departs from scientific consensus. Do you have any background information on where you read this/how you determined this?
- cies 10y ago
  Sure (sorry for not backing it up in the first place): http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microcephaly-zika-connection-blame-monsanto-linked-pesticide-birth-defects/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microce... Only days after a list of articles claiming no link with pesticides were published, here a link to one of them: http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto-linked-pesticide-is-to-blame-for-microcephaly-outbreak-not-zika http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto... I'm quite close to some people in academic virology and they also were not to keen on calling for a Zika outbreak.
  - steve19 10y ago
    A study published in The Lancet found a strong connection between Zika and microcephaly in fetuses in French Polynesia http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00651-6/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
    - divbyzer0 10y ago
      The main point of the article is that scientific & regulatory community was led by profit and not in the "spirit of disinterested inquiry". From the article: The original study on which the oil theory is founded, by Dr Juan Tabuenca Oliver, was published in the Lancet Also from the article: they concluded that, without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic. The organo-phosphorous chemicals would indeed cause the range of symptoms observed by clinicians. Getting published in The Lancet does not prove anything. eg MMR vacine\autism. The article is well worth a read.
      - heliumcraft 10y ago
        That may be so, but I'll take The Lancet over thefreethoughtproject.com, natural news and random conspiracy internet websites any day.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    OK, you've implied or linked to some significantly different claims here: 1. That there is no Zika outbreak / outbreak of Zika-like symptoms (this seems irrefutably wrong and as far as I know even the typical conspiracy theorist sites aren't claiming this much). 2. That the symptoms of Zika are in fact caused by the organo-phosphate pesticide Pyriproxyfen (Zika has been a recognized viral illness just like others e.g. Dengue for at least 50 years, predating the widepread use of organo-phosphates in Brazil, so this also is very, very unlikely). 3. That the microencephaly in babies borne to mothers with Zika, that is being attributed to the Zika virus, is in fact caused by Pyriproxyfen (for epidemiological reasons [1], this seems very unlikely but it cannot be ruled out at this point). By the way, your second source didn't seem terribly bad, and assumed an appropriate amount of skepticism toward the claims in question. Your first source, written by an "political analyst" currently pursuing a global affairs degree, and with no apparent scientific credentials, wasn't as convincing. Are any of the academic virologists you're referring to on public record with their skepticism about the Zika outbreak? 1. In the three cities reporting the most cases — Recife, Jaboatao and Paulista — pyriproxyfen is not in use, according to: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/467138913/did-a-pesticide-cause-microcephaly-in-brazil-unlikely-say-experts http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/46713891....