Does The Zika Virus Cause Microcephaly?

Microcephaly: babies born with smaller heads and brain impairment. Heard of it? Of course you have. Towering experts are saying it’s caused by the Zika virus in Brazil.

They don’t know how. They don’t know why. But they’re saying it over and over like trained parrots.

They’re saying that, somehow, this virus, which for at least 60 years was causing only mild illness, is now at the heart of all these new cases of microcephaly.

Really? Then why are there 25,000 cases of microcephaly in the US every year?

For science bloggers who live in mommy’s basement and love the statements of the experts, try this. I’ll give you the full citation. Ready?

“Practice Parameter: Evaluation of the child with microcephaly (an evidence-based review)”; Neurology 2009 Sep 15; 73(11) 887-897; Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society.

Here’s the money quote:

“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth…Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…”


Let me take apart that quote. Microcephaly can result from any early insult to the brain. Any.

That could mean a highly toxic pesticide, for example. It could mean severe and prolonged malnutrition of the mother. It could mean a toxic substance injected into the mother—a street drug or a vaccine. It could mean a physical blow. It could mean a mother’s chronic high fever. And so on.

Moving on: 25,000 cases, not just once, but every year in the US, means what? Christopher Columbus actually brought the Zika virus to America in 1492, and it lay dormant for a very long time and then, in the modern age, exploded on the scene in the US?

No. 25,000 cases a year in the US means we’re being treated to an unsupported major bullshit story right now.

That’s what it means…

The World Is Now 3 Minutes To Doomsday

Information on global warming and Zika virus.

Ecological Disaster After Disaster: Is Technology Worth The Price Humans Have To Pay?

Who pays the price when technology goes wrong, fails, makes a mistake, malfunctions, or is not developed or utilized properly? The answer is ordinary, everyday humans who work to provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families.

The photograph above shows the devastation due to the breach of an iron ore millings dam in Bento Rodrigues, Brazil. That disaster occurred November 5, 2015 when, according to Wikipedia [1], 60 million cubic meters of iron waste flowed into the Doce River. It’s been called the worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history, and yet the world seems not to care about it. Eleven people died and 12 went missing.

The toxic flow has killed most of the river’s wildlife, probably a source of food for many people.

The toxic mud, poisoned with arsenic and mercury, is flowing into the Atlantic Ocean.

Humans cannot continue to destroy the Planet’s oceans, as we do, with our technology and irresponsible ways: The Exxon Valdez oil spill from an ocean-going tanker that spilled 11 to 38 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound off Alaska, March 24, 1989 [2]; the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill that pumped millions of gallons of crude oil, plus the chemical Corexit into the Gulf [3-4]; and then there’s the mother of all ocean disasters—Fukushima [5]—constantly spewing radioactive elements into the Pacific Ocean. In April of 2015, a report claimed that trace amounts of Fukushima radiation had reached America’s western shores [6].

Oil spills raise toxic levels of arsenic in the ocean [7], and humans eat fish and seafood, especially bottom crawlers like shrimp and lobsters. How can “wild caught” be safe to eat?

And then there’s the great plastic island in the Pacific Ocean called the “great Pacific garbage patch.” Some media reports estimate it’s about twice the size of the continental United States [8]. Below is a photograph of a poor turtle caught in a six-pack plastic harness-carrier. Not being able to extricate itself from the plastic noose as a younger turtle, its body and shell grew around it into a most irregular shape.


Science, technology, business and industry, governments and ALL humans must realize the impact we are having upon the ability for the Planet to recoup the devastation that our modern, technological lifestyles and sciences have given us and plagued Nature with. What right do we have to do that? Have all our modern inventions really benefited humans and the Planet? We need to change course immediately IF we want to save our “Blue Jewel” orbiting in the Milky Way Galaxy…

Monsanto Pressures WHO And California Not To List Glyphosate As A Carcinogen

Glyphosate is the key ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup line of herbicides, as well as hundreds of other products, but many scientific studies have raised questions about the health impacts of glyphosate and consumer and medical groups have expressed worries about glyphosate residues in food.

In October, Carey Gillam reported for Reuters that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), has been accepting public comments about its intention to list glyphosate as a cause of cancer.

Roughly 8,000 comments were filed regarding the state action, according to officials, including those from Monsanto. Several farming, public health and environmental groups sent a letter to OEHHA supporting the listing, and said that rising use of glyphosate presents a danger to people and animals.

The OEHHA gave notice in September that it intended to list glyphosate under proposition 65, a state initiative enacted in 1986 to inform residents about cancer-causing chemicals. State officials said the action is required after the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research committee in March classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

As we reported in March, the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times reported Monsanto’s call for the World Health Organisatglyphosate round upion’s cancer agency to retract a report published in the journal Lancet Oncology by researchers for WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The WHO’s research unit, however, said it had reviewed many scientific studies, including two out of Sweden, one out of Canada and at least three in the United States before making its classification.

Since the WHO classification, the New York-based mass-tort firm of Weitz & Luxenberg, and other firms representing U.S. farm workers, have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, accusing the company of knowing of the dangers of glyphosate for decades. Monsanto has said the claims are without merit

Monsanto has now urged California not to list herbicide glyphosate as carcinogenic…

Global Warming Alarmists Claim Weather Satellites Can’t Be Trusted

Global warming believers always say that climate skeptics are guilty of wishful thinking, and that they’re letting politics and emotions get in the way of indisputable scientific truths. Time and again they say that climate skeptics are cherry picking the data, and are falling for their own confirmation biases. They may be right. Many of the people who believe in man-made global warming are scientists, and scientists are really good at spotting those sorts of things. But they’re also human, so they’re just as likely to be guilty of cherry picking and confirmation bias as anyone else.

Never was this more true, than when NOAA announced earlier this year that the global warming “pause” didn’t happen. For the past 19 years give or take, the official data has shown very little global warming, which as you might expect has perturbed climate scientists ever since.

Then NOAA scientists conducted a study that claimed the methods used to measure ocean temperature in the past were inaccurate, and after compensating the data to reflect newer measuring techniques, they found that the world had been warming this whole time. The global warming pause was just a myth used by climate deniers to fool the public, and themselves.

Of course, this study completely ignored the most comprehensive ocean temperature testing system known as the Argo Array, and the biggest adjustments to the data are conveniently made for 1998-present day time period. So how did they really come to this new conclusion? We don’t know. Many of the adjustments that were made are left unexplained, and when a congressman asked them to hand over the data and internal memos that were connected to the study, NOAA flat-out refused to do so. If that’s not suspicious, then I don’t know what is…