Notwithstanding the almost universal panic about the threat of the Zika virus, there has been no definitive link between the virus and the increased incidence of microcephaly in babies born in Brazil.
The minister of health of Brazil has stated that they were “absolutely sure” that the Zika virus is connected to the high incidence of microcephaly. He bases his judgment on the coincidence of the Zika outbreak occurring six months before the increase in the debilitating syndrome.
That is the only “link” that can be confirmed. All other attempts to find a causal link between the two have failed the simplest test of statistical significance.
Funny thing, statistics. They could be used to predict almost everything, but just as surely they could be twisted to prove or disprove any theory, no matter how remote.
But statistics are the best bet in any situation where the actual facts can only be assured after the fact.
There are two important levels of statistical significance. Five per cent and 20 per cent. At the five per cent level one could say that there is a possibility of something being the case if only five per cent of the sample conforms to or tests positive for the condition.
At the 20 per cent level you could put your head on a block, so to speak, that the premise has been proved because at least 20 per cent of the sample conforms.
Brazil normally sees around 150 cases of microcephaly annually, which already seems a lot. This year this burgeoned to almost 4,000 suspected cases with about 500 confirmed and about one and a half times that many rejected.
Out of the 4,000 or so cases, only 17 mothers or children had any evidence of the Zika virus. Six of the children tested were infected. Presumably the mothers of the babies that tested positive also tested positive so that means only five additional mothers had contracted Zika, but not passed it on to their children.
That’s 17 out of 4,000. Nowhere close to even the five per cent significance level and probably the same or even less than the incidence of Zika in the general population, of which over 1.5 million people have contracted the virus.
Zika is now prevalent in at least 30 countries including in the Americas but no other country has reported any cases of microcephaly.
It seems that being born in Brazil is more of a significance than being infected with Zika, since all the babies with microcephaly are born there.
So why then is there such an effort being made to find a link where none seems to exist?
Could there be any other mitigating circumstances? Were other factors considered?
There have been reports that pregnant women in Brazil were administered a new drug intended to pass on immunity to their babies to tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough. Could this have been a factor?
Others have postulated that the genetically modified mosquito trials in the same general location of the higher incidence of microcephaly, could have something to do with it and certainly if tenuous links are to be explored, then something like a genetically modified organism mixed into the wild population of the very mosquito suspected of being the cause…well as they say, you do the math.
That is provided that the mosquito had anything to do with it in the first place.
Which is what the scientists investigating the problem have continued to say. There is as yet no discernible link between Zika and microcephaly.
So why are the media so intent on saying exactly the opposite?
Well it makes good news for one and because things always get altered when repeated enough.
But why put so many expectant mothers through the anxiety that their babies would be born deformed or as some have suggested to have them aborted or to persuade couples to postpone conception?
Already there are talks of vaccine testing within six months. 400,000 euro has been provided by the International Energy Agency to provide nuclear-derived early detection testing kits, whatever that is.
Even the University of the West Indies has launched a task force. Somebody must be funding all of this. Testing takes time, research even more so. Somebody has to pay for all that.
Millions could be affected. Vaccines have to be developed.
Making money off of suffering or even potential for suffering is nothing new and hardly considered even immoral, but what if there is even a more sinister motive?
What if something else is the cause, something actually administered by a human element?
Wayne Cezair,
Alternative and Biologic Solutions, Port-of-Spain