A new actor of a new play: Zika virus
The WHO (World Health Organization) stated there may be a correlation between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and microcephaly, but this is not yet scientifically proven!
Despite the “non scientifically proven”, some governments and media around the world have already started a fear-mongering.
Is it a new agent of bioterrorism? Or is it another fake pandemic like Ebola, SARS and many others before it?
The Zika virus itself has been around since around 1947…do you know who is the owner of the patent of Zika virus? Rockefeller Corporation, one of the most wealthy and powerful New World Order Families.
So, the suspicion is that this may possibly be a question of mockery used to hide an uncomfortable truth; the Zika phenomenon is full of unfounded presumptions and no evidence.
Some Zika questions:
- Sao Paulo newspaper article reports that in Brazil (in 2016) there were:
4783 suspected cases of microcephaly, 404 confirmed, 17 linked to Zika virus.
The BBC reported 4 millions cases in Brazil in 2016…4 millions vs 17? How is it possible?
Where is the evidence of an epidemic?
2. Where is the evidence that Zika virus is the cause of microcephaly?
There are actually many potential causes of microcephaly like pesticides poisons, lack of sanitation, lack of hygiene, lack of nutrition, poverty, toxins, vaccine, Pharma drug effects.
3. Why getting people not to have sex and for women to have abortions?
Most of the reports are based on 2 tests: the Antibody test and the PCR test…both of them failed!
As Rappoport explains:
When a test shows that antibodies geared to a specific virus/villain (like Zika) are present in the body, it means the body has contacted that Zika virus if the test was done well and did come up with a falsely-positive result. False positives are frequent. But more disastrously, proving the body had contact with a specific virus says absolutely nothing about whether the patient is sick or will get sick. In fact, before 1985, a positive antibody test was generally taken to be a good sign: the body immune system had encountered and overcome the invader. After 1985, the science was turned upside down: a positive test meant the person was sick or going to get sick.
The PCR is a very sophisticated and tricky test to run. It is prone to errors. It takes a tiny, tiny amount of material assumed to be a fragment of a virus, and it amplifies (blows up) that fragment so it can be observed. The first problem with the test is: did technicians indeed choose a tiny sample that actually is a piece of the virus in question? Or is it simply a bit of genetic debris? The second problem is: the test, despite claims to the contrary, says nothing reliable about the amount of virus (like Zika) that is in the patient body. Why is this important? Because you need a great deal of virus in the body to begin to say it is causing disease. A very small amount is trivial.
Rockefeller patent in 1947; GE (Genetically Engineered) mosquitos released by Oxitec with funding from Bill Gates; Oxitec made the mistake of not taking into account the amount of tetracycline in the pesticides in the area; big Pharma intervention; more GE mosquitoes, more pesticides and more vaccines…can you see a pattern?
Eugenicist Aldous Huxley described a future society where reproduction is strictly controlled by the State, would has he been proud?