生物战在行动 —Biological Warfare in Action
- 第1章—— 引言 — Chapter 1 — Introduction
- 第2章——美国国内项目和实验 — Chapter 2 — US Domestic Projects and Experiments
- 第3章——美国可疑疫情 — Chapter 3 — US Suspicious Outbreaks
- 第4章——美国海外部署 — Chapter 4 — US Foreign Deployment
- 第5章-世界卫生组织-人口减少是现实 — Chapter 5 — The WHO – Depopulation is Reality
- 第6章——辉瑞公司对流行病把握的恰到好处 — Chapter 6 — Pfizer’s Perfectly-Timed Epidemic
- 第7章——美国禽流感 — Chapter 7 — US Bird flu
- 第8章——英国口蹄疫 — Chapter 8 — UK Foot and Mouth Disease
- 第9章——意大利的橄榄树 — Chapter 9 — Italy’s Olive Trees
- 第10章——最近的生物武器袭击 — Chapter 10 – Recent Bio-Weapons Attacks
- 第11章——艾滋病 — Chapter 11 – AIDS
- 第12章——非典型肺炎 — Chapter 12 – SARS
- 第13章——中东呼吸综合征 — Chapter 13 – MERS
- 第14章——埃博拉病毒 — Chapter 14 – EBOLA
- 第15 寨——卡病毒 — Chapter 15 – ZIKA
- 第16章——新冠肺炎疫苗和Oxitec的“飞行注射器” — Chapter 16 – COVID Vaccinations and Oxitec’s “Flying Syringes”
- 第17章——尾声 — Chapter 17 – Epilogue
生物战在行动 —Biological Warfare in Action
第15章-寨卡病毒 —Chapter 15 – ZIKA
作者：拉里·罗曼诺夫
译者：珍珠
The ZIKA virus is named after the ZIKA forest in Uganda, where it was first discovered, and is a type of flavivirus, closely related to those which cause more serious diseases like dengue and yellow fever. ZIKA normally produces symptoms such as fever or conjunctivitis and sometimes joint pain, but typically so mild that the symptoms last for only a few days and most people don’t even know they have it. The ZIKA is not contagious but is transmitted by mosquitoes, which means you must be bitten by an infected mosquito to contract it. Africans have developed antibodies to the virus and are mostly immune, but Westerners have no such immunity and for them there is no vaccine or cure for the ZIKA virus, though none is generally necessary.
寨卡病毒以其首次被发现的乌干达寨卡森林命名，是一种黄病毒，与引起登革热和黄热病等更严重疾病的病毒密切相关。寨卡病毒通常会产生发烧或结膜炎等症状，有时还会引起关节疼痛，但通常症状很轻微，症状只持续几天，大多数人甚至不知道自己感染了寨卡病毒。寨卡病毒不具有传染性，但通过蚊子传播，这意味着你必须被感染的蚊子叮咬才能感染。非洲人已经产生了对该病毒的抗体，并且大多具有免疫力，但西方人没有这种免疫力，对他们来说，没有针对寨卡病毒的疫苗或治疗方法，尽管通常没有疫苗或治愈方法是必要的。
The virus was first isolated from a rhesus monkey in Uganda in 1947, was discovered in a few humans in Uganda and Tanzania some years later, and in humans in Nigeria in 1968. (1) (2) There was never any indication that the virus “traveled well”, and it remained an obscure and unremarkable illness with only a handful of reported cases for 40 years until it suddenly appeared on a South Pacific island in Micronesia in 2007, which was the first time it had been seen outside its original home, but where it apparently did nothing of consequence. (3) Some six or seven years later, there was a outbreak in French Polynesia, also in the South Pacific, that affected about 10% of the population, but this time with the added feature of apparently causing Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks itself, or at least the body’s nerves, and can be paralysing or even fatal.Then after a hiatus of seven or so years ZIKA appeared abruptly in Brazil, with a virtually simultaneous spread to more than 20 other countries. On this occasion, ZIKA was now linked to a severe birth defect called microcephaly and possibly other birth defects and neurological disorders.Those are the basic facts.
该病毒于1947年首次从乌干达的恒河猴身上分离出来，几年后在乌干达和坦桑尼亚的少数人身上发现，1968年在尼日利亚的人身上也发现。（1） （2）从来没有任何迹象表明该病毒“传播良好”，40年来，它一直是一种不起眼的疾病，只有少数病例报告，直到2007年它突然出现在密克罗尼西亚的一个南太平洋岛屿上，这是第一次在其原居地之外看到它，但显然没有造成任何后果。（3） 大约六七年后，法属波利尼西亚和南太平洋也爆发了疫情，影响了约10%的人口，但这一次增加了明显引起格林-巴利综合征的特征，这是一种罕见的自身免疫性疾病，身体的免疫系统会攻击自己，或至少攻击身体的神经，可能会瘫痪甚至致命。然后，在中断了大约七年后，ZIKA突然出现在巴西，并几乎同时传播到其他20多个国家。在这种情况下，ZIKA现在与一种名为小头畸形的严重出生缺陷以及可能的其他出生缺陷和神经系统疾病有关。这些都是基本事实。
Some Brazilian researchers are questioning the link between Zika virus and microcephaly. Source
一些巴西研究人员质疑寨卡病毒与小头畸形之间的联系。来源
There was substantial controversy about the links between ZIKA and microcephaly, the official narrative being that ZIKA was suspected – and indeed was strongly promoted – as the cause, but always with caveats suggesting the links might have been coincidental or opportunistic rather than causal. (4) (5) One group of medical practitioners in Brazil wrote a paper suggesting microcephaly was either caused by, or linked to, the dispersal of the chemical pyroxiprophen, an insecticide recommended by the WHO, which was heavily sprayed in drinking water reservoirs in the areas exhibiting the highest incidences of the condition, a theory that appeared to have at least a solid circumstantial basis. The physicians stated that pyriproxifen was a hormone disruptor and growth inhibitor that altered the development process of mosquitoes, generating malformations and causing their death or incapacity to reproduce. They wrote,“Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added pyriproxifen to drinking water is not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health [rules out] the hypothesis of direct and cumulative chemical damage.”(6) A German epidemiologist, Dr. Christoph Zink, had been studying and charting the timing and geographic distribution of both ZIKA and microcephaly, and wrote “I soon got the idea that blaming the ZIKA virus for this epidemic does not really get to the point”, stating a suspicion there had been under-reporting of cases for years. (7) But, according to a CBC report, he also suspected a chemical explanation for the heavy concentration in Northeastern Brazil, stating, “I would ask my toxicological colleagues in Brazil to please look very closely into the practical application of agrochemicals”.Others discounted this hypothesis on the basis of an inconsistent time-line and some conflicting data. Be this as it may, the links between ZIKA and the birth defects appeared at the time of writing (and later) to be only coincidental at best, with no evidence of direct causality.
关于ZIKA和小头畸形之间的联系存在很大争议，官方说法是ZIKA被怀疑——事实上也得到了大力宣传——是病因，但始终有警告表明这种联系可能是巧合或机会性的，而不是因果关系。（4） （5）巴西的一组医生写了一篇论文，表明小头畸形是由世界卫生组织推荐的一种杀虫剂pyrosipuren的扩散引起的，或与之有关，这种杀虫剂被大量喷洒在发病率最高地区的饮用水蓄水池中，这一理论似乎至少有坚实的环境基础。医生们表示，吡丙西芬是一种激素干扰剂和生长抑制剂，它改变了蚊子的发育过程，产生畸形，导致蚊子死亡或丧失繁殖能力。他们写道：“尽管卫生部[排除]了直接和累积化学损伤的假设，但在生活在巴西政府向饮用水中添加吡丙西芬的地区的数千名孕妇的孩子身上检测到的畸形并非巧合。”（6）德国流行病学家Christoph Zink博士一直在研究和绘制ZIKA和小头畸形的时间和地理分布图，并写道：“我很快就想到，将这种流行病归咎于ZIKA病毒并没有真正切中要害”，他怀疑多年来病例报告一直不足。（7） 但是，根据加拿大广播公司的报道，他也怀疑巴西东北部高浓度的化学解释，他说：“我想请我在巴西的毒理学同事仔细研究农用化学品的实际应用”。其他人基于不一致的时间线和一些相互矛盾的数据对这一假设不以为然。尽管如此，ZIKA和出生缺陷之间的联系在撰写本文时（以及后来）似乎充其量只是巧合，没有直接因果关系的证据。
It was interesting that this debate conducted itself with more heat than light, exhibiting the kind of characteristics we associate with the pros and cons of 5G communication, that is to say more ideological and emotional than scientific. It was also interesting that the American CDC and the UN’s WHO acted fervently to lay the blame for birth defects directly on ZIKA while simultaneously building an exit for possible later use with what I thought were rather cleverly-worded suggestions that the link was “not entirely proven”. This clearly coordinated campaign, with its vast international media support, carried with it a powerful scent of an intent to deflect the main issue into a desired channel and thereby discourage active investigation or discussion of topics outside the official approved list. Evidence of this seemed apparent in the unwarranted eagerness with which officials and the many elements of the media literally trashed anyone suggesting a story line that differed from the official version.As I wrote in the Introduction, a clear warning sign that a desired official story is being crafted is when those presenting contrary facts and theories are not only immediately and widely denounced as biased ideologues but derided as conspiracy theorists. ZIKA fit this template very well.
有趣的是，这场辩论比光更激烈，表现出了我们与5G通信的利弊联系在一起的那种特征，也就是说，更多的是意识形态和情感，而不是科学。同样有趣的是，美国疾病控制与预防中心和联合国世界卫生组织积极行动，将出生缺陷的责任直接归咎于ZIKA，同时建立一个出口，供日后使用，我认为这是措辞相当巧妙的建议，即这种联系“尚未完全得到证实”。这场协调明确的运动，在其广泛的国际媒体支持下，带有一种强烈的意图，即将主要问题转移到所需的渠道，从而阻碍对官方批准名单之外的主题进行积极调查或讨论。这一点的证据似乎显而易见，因为官员和媒体的许多成员毫无根据地急于抨击任何提出与官方版本不同故事情节的人。正如我在引言中所写的那样，当那些提出相反事实和理论的人不仅立即被广泛谴责为有偏见的理论家，而且被嘲笑为阴谋论者时，一个明确的警告信号表明，一个想要的官方故事正在被精心制作。ZIKA非常适合这个模板。
Whatever the totality of truths may be about this viral outbreak, the media coverage – the official narrative – about ZIKA quickly focused entirely on the statistically insignificant numbers of birth defects in relation to the total infected populations, and the simultaneous initiation of a concentrated debate about the cause of such defects, while dismissing in a single careless phrase the origin of the ZIKA outbreak itself. While it is the origin and cause of the outbreak that should have been the main story, the official narrative pushed this aspect into the background where the media buried it. And it is primarily this that contained the scent of an attempt to deflect the main issue not only into a desired channel but away from other, perhaps politically dangerous, aspects of the event. So let’s take a few minutes to examine the curious origin of this outbreak.
无论这次病毒爆发的总体真相如何，媒体对寨卡病毒的报道——官方叙事——很快就完全集中在出生缺陷相对于总感染人群的统计上微不足道的数字上，同时就这些缺陷的原因展开了集中辩论，同时用一句漫不经心的话驳斥了寨卡病毒爆发本身的起源。虽然疫情的起源和原因本应是主要的故事，但官方的叙述将这一方面推到了媒体埋葬它的背景中。主要是因为这一点，人们试图将主要问题转移到一个想要的渠道，而且远离事件的其他方面，也许是政治上危险的方面。因此，让我们花几分钟时间来研究这次疫情的奇怪起源。
As already noted, ZIKA was never predisposed to travel, considering that it sat in Uganda since 1947 and went nowhere. Surely it had multiple opportunities to attach itself to a person or mosquito and land on another continent. But no. It stayed at home, and for almost 60 years was not a public menace, had never been associated with birth or other physical defects, and attracted no attention. So, if this ZIKA virus could stay at home and remain more or less localised for 60 years, why would it suddenly begin travelling the world? And, if the virus had never spread explosively at home in Africa in that 60 years, how could it suddenly become so active and virulent as to have infected almost the entirety of South and Central America in only a few months?
如前所述，考虑到ZIKA自1947年以来一直驻扎在乌干达，没有去过任何地方，它从来没有旅行的倾向。当然，它有多种机会附着在一个人或蚊子身上，然后降落在另一个大陆上。但没有。它呆在家里，近60年来一直不是公共威胁，从未与出生或其他身体缺陷联系在一起，也没有引起任何关注。那么，如果这种寨卡病毒可以留在家里，并在60年内或多或少地保持局部性，为什么它会突然开始在世界各地传播呢？而且，如果在那60年里，这种病毒从未在非洲本土爆发式传播，它怎么会突然变得如此活跃和致命，以至于在短短几个月内感染了几乎整个南美洲和中美洲？
Countries with confirmed Zika virus cases. Data from WHO February 2016. Source
有寨卡病毒确诊病例的国家。世界卫生组织2016年2月数据。来源
Let’s review the path. One day in 2007, ZIKA traveled by means unknown, 15,000 kilometers from Africa to land on a tiny Micronesian island named Yap, where it rested for six or seven years doing nothing remarkable, then continued its voyage of several thousand kilometers to French Polynesia where it landed to infect a large percentage of the population and do rather more harm. After another lengthy pause of six or seven years it began another voyage, this time traveling 12,000 kilometers or so, crossing much of the Pacific Ocean, the US and Mexico, all of Central America and the Caribbean, and finally traversing all of South America to land on the Atlantic side in Rio and São Paulo. From there, it almost instantaneously radiated outward 4,000 or 5,000 kilometers in all directions to cover most of Brazil(the fifth-largest country in the world). ZIKA then spread to all of South and Central America and the Caribbean, flooding more than 20 countries within a few months, then embarked on journeys of 8,000 kilometers or more, voyaging as far as Mexico and Puerto Rico. It then quickly headed Northeast on another journey of 8,000 kilometers to land in Spain where it was predicted to become a calamity.
让我们回顾一下路径。2007年的一天，ZIKA以未知的方式从非洲出发，行驶了15000公里，降落在一个名为Yap的密克罗尼西亚小岛上，在那里休息了六七年，什么都没做，然后继续数千公里的航行，前往法属波利尼西亚，在那里着陆，感染了很大一部分人口，造成了更大的伤害。在又一次长达六七年的漫长停顿之后，它开始了另一次航行，这次行程约12000公里，穿越太平洋大部分地区、美国和墨西哥、整个中美洲和加勒比地区，最后穿越整个南美洲，在里约和圣保罗的大西洋一侧着陆。从那里，它几乎瞬间向四面八方向外辐射4000或5000公里，覆盖了巴西（世界第五大国）的大部分地区。ZIKA随后蔓延至整个南美洲、中美洲和加勒比地区，在几个月内淹没了20多个国家，然后开始了8000公里或更长的旅程，航行至墨西哥和波多黎各。随后，它迅速向东北方向前进，又行驶了8000公里，在西班牙着陆，预计这将成为一场灾难。
Now let’s think about the journey. Viruses can’t fly, and they don’t travel on airplanes. They travel by mosquito, and mosquitoes don’t travel either. They live their entire short lives within maybe one kilometer of wherever they were hatched. It’s true they are sometimes blown around by prevailing winds and could potentially end up almost anywhere, but these wind-blown insects tend to number in the tens or hundreds rather than the hundreds of millions necessary to infect millions of people in a vast country like Brazil. Some news media published deliberately misleading and unforgivably uninformed reports referring to the “migration patterns” of mosquitoes, but mosquitoes do not migrate, not in any sense of the meaning of that word. Birds migrate, caribou migrate, locusts and lemmings migrate. Monarch butterflies migrate. Ducks, geese and hummingbirds migrate. Mosquitoes do not migrate. They cannot.
现在让我们思考一下旅程。病毒不能飞行，也不能在飞机上传播。它们乘蚊子旅行，蚊子也不旅行。它们短暂的一生都生活在离孵化地大约一公里的范围内。诚然，它们有时会被盛行的风吹得到处都是，并可能最终几乎消失在任何地方，但在巴西这样一个幅员辽阔的国家，这些被风吹的昆虫往往有几十或几百只，而不是感染数百万人所需的数亿只。一些新闻媒体发表了故意误导和不可原谅的无知报道，提到蚊子的“迁徙模式”，但蚊子不会迁徙，这与这个词的含义无关。鸟类迁徙，驯鹿迁徙，蝗虫和旅鼠迁徙。帝王蝶迁徙。鸭子、鹅和蜂鸟迁徙。蚊子不会迁徙。他们不能。
As one entomologist wrote, “mosquitoes live within a mile or two of their breeding grounds their entire life, with little evidence they make purposeful long distance flights that can be classified zoologically as migration. It is better to regard all mosquito flights as dispersal.” In other words, we cannot have tens of millions of mosquitoes, infected or otherwise, filling their tiny luggage with mini-viruses and flying 15,000 kilometers to take up residence in another country. We are told that mosquitoes will sometimes breed in pools of water, in old auto tires and other odd places, and can by this method be transported around the world, but again the numbers of insects traveling this way would be exceedingly low for our purposes since no country – and certainly not Brazil – is importing sufficient numbers of old tires to bring us the hundreds of millions of insects we need to create an epidemic. And yes, mosquitoes breed, but to burgeon in only weeks from a few infected mating pairs in one location to a few hundred million scattered over millions of square kilometers is beyond the ability even of mosquitoes.
正如一位昆虫学家所写，“蚊子一生都生活在离繁殖地一两英里的范围内，几乎没有证据表明它们会进行有目的的长途飞行，在动物学上可以归类为迁徙。最好把所有蚊子的飞行都视为传播。”换言之，我们不能让数千万只蚊子，无论是否感染，在它们的小行李里装满迷你病毒，飞行15000公里到另一个国家定居。我们被告知，蚊子有时会在水池、旧汽车轮胎和其他奇怪的地方繁殖，并可以通过这种方法传播到世界各地，但就我们的目的而言，通过这种方式传播的昆虫数量将极低，因为没有一个国家——当然也没有巴西——进口足够数量的旧轮胎，为我们带来制造流行病所需的数亿只昆虫。是的，蚊子是会繁殖的，但要在短短几周内从一个地方的几对受感染的配偶繁殖到散布在数百万平方公里的数亿只，甚至是蚊子都无法做到的。
- The Infected World Cup Visitor
Zika Virus Transmission Cycle. Source
寨卡病毒传播周期。来源
And it was here that the WHO and the Western media began crafting their tale. The official narrative was that the mosquitoes never did travel. Instead, the virus found itself a means of long-distance transport and was “believed to have been brought to Brazil by an infected visitor to the World Cup”. Thus, according to the WHO and the compliant media, a lone traveler infected millions of people in Rio and within a few months the disease had spread to Colombia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Panama, the Honduras, Guyana, Martinique, Puerto Rico and Mexico, and altogether more than 20 countries. We need only think for a moment to realise this proposition is a ridiculous impossibility.I wrote above that the origin of the ZIKA outbreak was dismissed in a single careless phrase, that phrase being “believed to have been brought to Brazil by an infected visitor to the World Cup”, a statement tossed out with no evidential support, one that appears superficially credible but which constitutes logical rubbish.And, as we will see, ZIKA was in Brazil long before the World Cup.Remember, ZIKA is not a contagious disease spread by coughing or sneezing or even extended social contact. It is a virus infection carried by mosquitoes, and one must be bitten to contract it. The traveling of infected people from Polynesia to Brazil is of no consequence in itself since the only way to transmit their disease is by being bitten by mosquitoes, which might in turn become infected then spread the infection by biting others. (8)
正是在这里，世界卫生组织和西方媒体开始精心制作他们的故事。官方的说法是蚊子从来没有传播过。相反，这种病毒发现自己是一种长途运输工具，“据信是由一名受感染的世界杯游客带到巴西的”。因此，根据世界卫生组织和合规媒体的说法，一名独自旅行者在里约感染了数百万人，在几个月内，该疾病已传播到哥伦比亚、巴拉圭、委内瑞拉、巴拿马、洪都拉斯、圭亚那、马提尼克、波多黎各和墨西哥，以及总共20多个国家。我们只需要思考一下就可以意识到这个命题是荒谬的不可能。我在上面写道，ZIKA疫情的起源被一句漫不经心的话所否定，这句话“据信是由一名受感染的世界杯游客带到巴西的”，这句声明被丢弃，没有任何证据支持，表面上看起来可信，但却构成了逻辑垃圾。而且，正如我们将看到的，齐卡早在世界杯之前就在巴西了。请记住，ZIKA不是一种通过咳嗽、打喷嚏甚至长时间社交传播的传染病。这是一种由蚊子携带的病毒感染，必须被叮咬才能感染。感染者从波利尼西亚前往巴西本身没有任何后果，因为传播疾病的唯一途径是被蚊子叮咬，蚊子可能会被感染，然后通过叮咬他人传播感染。(8)
Let’s take a moment to think about the supposedly-infected (and surely imaginary) World Cup visitor, and consider the astonishingly-rapid spread of the infection. The official narrative was that the virus came to Brazil from French Polynesia, but how many people, infected or otherwise, would be likely to travel from the tiny population of French Polynesia to Brazil just to watch a football game? Two? Ten? So how could clean, uninfected Brazilian mosquitoes find those few infected Polynesian people, bite them and become infected in turn, then spread the infection to at least tens of millions of insects in a few months so as to bite and infect many millions of people throughout the entirety of Latin America? The sheer volume of the outbreak coupled with its virtually instantaneous spread, dismisses any possibility of this infection originating with a foreign traveler. One mosquito biting one person does not constitute an epidemic. If we want to have an “explosive spread” of a mosquito-borne virus like the ZIKA, which infected millions of people in only a very short time, we need at least tens of millions of mosquitoes but more reasonably we need hundreds of millions of them. This is especially true when the mosquitoes seem determined to infect the enormous land areas of South and Central America, passing over vast unpopulated areas in the process. Not every mosquito is infected, not every infected mosquito will find someone to bite, not everyone will be bitten, and not everyone bitten will be infected. And a mosquito’s life is very short indeed, about ten days.
让我们花点时间思考一下这位据称被感染（当然也是想象中的）世界杯游客，并考虑一下感染的惊人快速传播。官方的说法是，这种病毒是从法属波利尼西亚来到巴西的，但有多少人，无论是感染者还是其他人，可能会从法属波利西亚这个人口稀少的地区前往巴西，只是为了观看足球比赛？二十那么，清洁的、未感染的巴西蚊子如何能找到那些少数感染波利尼西亚人，叮咬他们并依次感染，然后在几个月内将感染传播给至少数千万只昆虫，从而叮咬并感染整个拉丁美洲的数百万人呢？疫情的规模之大，再加上其几乎瞬间的传播，排除了这种感染源于外国旅行者的任何可能性。一只蚊子咬一个人并不构成流行病。如果我们想让像寨卡病毒这样的蚊子传播病毒“爆炸性传播”，它在很短的时间内感染了数百万人，我们至少需要数千万只蚊子，但更合理的是，我们需要数亿只蚊子。当蚊子似乎决心感染南美洲和中美洲的大片陆地地区，并在此过程中经过大片无人居住的地区时，情况尤其如此。不是每只蚊子都被感染，不是每只被感染的蚊子都会找人咬，不是每一个人都会被咬，也不是每一个被咬的人都会被感染。蚊子的寿命确实很短，大约十天。
With only a handful of infected people, such a widespread epidemic is impossible by this method of transmission. The number of travelers is statistically insignificant, so even if they were all bitten many times by different insects, the totality of those insects could not have in turn bitten and infected millions of people in 20 countries within a few months, especially countries many thousands of kilometers away, considering that mosquitoes do not travel. It’s true the infected mosquitoes would breed and perhaps contaminate their young, but this would by definition be a localised outbreak with no natural possibility of traveling even tens, much less thousands of kilometers to cover a continent. One infected mosquito cannot breed millions of offspring and cover millions of square kilometers in a few months. And, if one person traveled to Rio or São Paulo for a football game, how does that explain the disease exploding in a dozen other cities in Brazil, all at approximately the same time? How does that explain the disease spreading to Colombia and a dozen other nearby countries, and 8,000 Kms away in Mexico and Puerto Rico, very shortly thereafter? Even if infected travelers from Brazil went to Mexico, how many would be bitten by clean mosquitoes there, and be able to pass on the virus? Statistically zero, or thereabouts.
由于只有少数感染者，这种传播方式不可能造成如此广泛的流行病。旅行者的数量在统计上是微不足道的，因此，即使他们都被不同的昆虫叮咬了很多次，考虑到蚊子不会传播，这些昆虫的总数也不可能在几个月内反过来叮咬和感染20个国家的数百万人，尤其是数千公里外的国家。诚然，受感染的蚊子会繁殖，并可能污染它们的幼蚊，但从定义上讲，这将是一次局部爆发，不可能自然传播几十公里，更不用说数千公里来覆盖一个大陆了。一只受感染的蚊子无法在几个月内繁殖数百万只后代并覆盖数百万平方公里。而且，如果一个人去里约或圣保罗看足球比赛，这如何解释这种疾病在巴西其他十几个城市几乎同时爆发？这如何解释这种疾病在不久后传播到哥伦比亚和其他十几个附近国家，以及8000公里外的墨西哥和波多黎各？即使来自巴西的受感染旅行者去了墨西哥，有多少人会在那里被干净的蚊子叮咬，并能够传播病毒？统计上为零，或大约为零。
Millions of mosquitoes cannot bite the same ten travelers, become infected, then bite millions of other people and cause an epidemic. You don’t have to be a statistician to know that’s not possible. If millions of people are infected, there had to have been at least many millions of infected mosquitoes in the area. So, the most important question in this entire saga is: how did at least tens, and more likely, hundreds, of millions of insects become infected? The virus did not exist in Brazil. Native mosquitoes were not infected with ZIKA, and could have become infected only by either biting countless thousands of infected people, or else being the offspring from millions of matings with infected insects, but where would those come from? A few infected travelers cannot account for such a massive geographical outbreak within weeks, which means vast numbers of infected mosquitoes must have been introduced in those locations. There is no other possible explanation.
数以百万计的蚊子无法叮咬同样的十名旅行者，被感染，然后叮咬数百万其他人，导致流行病。你不必是一个统计学家就知道这是不可能的。如果数百万人被感染，那么该地区至少有数百万只蚊子被感染。因此，在整个传奇故事中，最重要的问题是：至少有几十只，更有可能是数亿只昆虫是如何被感染的？这种病毒在巴西并不存在。本地蚊子没有感染寨卡病毒，只有通过叮咬成千上万的感染者，或者是数百万只感染昆虫交配的后代，才可能被感染，但这些蚊子是从哪里来的？少数受感染的旅行者无法解释几周内如此大规模的地理爆发，这意味着这些地方一定引入了大量受感染的蚊子。没有其他可能的解释。
The WHO’s official statement said ZIKA appeared to be spreading so rapidly for two reasons: One, because it was a new disease to the region and so the population had no immunity, and two, because ZIKA is primarily transmitted by a mosquito species known as A. aegypti, which lives in every country in North and South America except Canada and Chile.These statements are deliberate misinformation and unforgivably dishonest for what they neglect to say. The portion about the lack of immunity is true, but that lack of immunity exists only because, as the WHO itself pointed out, ZIKA is a new disease to the region, meaning it didn’t exist in Brazil or South-Central America prior to this time. The second portion of the statement is even more dishonest.The WHO tells us the disease spread so rapidly because it is transmitted by a species of mosquito which exists locally, but the reason the disease was new to the region in the first instance is that domestic mosquitoes had never been infected and therefore could not possibly have been responsible for the dispersion of the virus.
世界卫生组织的官方声明称，ZIKA的传播速度如此之快有两个原因：一是因为它是该地区的一种新疾病，因此人群没有免疫力；二是因为ZIKA主要由埃及伊蚊传播，这种蚊子生活在除加拿大和智利以外的南北美洲每个国家。这些言论是故意的错误信息，不可原谅地不诚实，因为他们忽视了所说的话。关于缺乏免疫力的部分是真实的，但缺乏免疫力的存在只是因为，正如世界卫生组织自己指出的那样，ZIKA是该地区的一种新疾病，这意味着在此之前，它不存在于巴西或中南美洲。声明的第二部分甚至更不诚实。世界卫生组织告诉，这种疾病传播如此之快，是因为它是由当地存在的一种蚊子传播的，但这种疾病最初在该地区是新出现的原因是，国内蚊子从未被感染，因此不可能对病毒的传播负责。
It is worth noting the cleverness of the WHO’s statement. It does not say the disease was spread by local mosquitoes (and could not have been, since they weren’t infected), but spread by the same species that lives in South America. That’s not exactly the same thing. The fact that this strain of mosquito lives in South and Central America is entirely irrelevant to the ZIKA outbreak because these local mosquitoes were not infected. The statement appears to blame local insects – by family association, and we would normally draw this inference from a casual reading, but if we examine the words, the statement tells us absolutely nothing and is fraudulent because it leads us to a false conclusion. The WHO glossed over the most important question in this entire issue, which is how tens or hundreds of millions of a local variety of clean mosquitoes suddenly became infected by a foreign virus and in a few months caused an epidemic covering nearly 20 million square kilometers.
值得注意的是，世界卫生组织的声明十分聪明。它没有说这种疾病是由当地的蚊子传播的（不可能是，因为它们没有被感染），而是由生活在南美洲的同一物种传播的。这不完全是一回事。这种蚊子生活在南美洲和中美洲，这与寨卡病毒的爆发完全无关，因为这些当地蚊子没有被感染。该声明似乎指责了当地的昆虫——通过家庭关系，我们通常会从偶然的阅读中得出这一推论，但如果我们仔细阅读这些文字，该声明告诉我们什么都没有，而且是欺诈性的，因为它会导致我们得出错误的结论。世界卫生组织掩盖了整个问题中最重要的问题，即数千万或数亿种当地清洁蚊子是如何突然感染外来病毒的，并在几个月内引发了一场覆盖近2000万平方公里的流行病。
It is of course theoretically possible for a single infected person to initiate an eventual epidemic, but consider the circumstances necessary. One infected person traveling to a new location is bitten by one or more mosquitoes who become infected and who bite a few other persons who become infected in turn. The infected mosquitoes breed and die, leaving potentially infected offspring who can gradually spread the disease. At the beginning, this would be tightly localised, not only in one city but likely in one area of one city since we have very few infected mosquitoes that do not travel. Then gradually, infected persons would move to other areas of the city and to other cities, and slowly spread the infection to other areas. But it should be obvious that this method would require years to create an epidemic, and would still not account for an explosive spread in the new locations. By definition, a natural introduction and spread of a mosquito-borne virus would require years to develop. The only physical way to have an explosive spread of an insect-borne disease is to have hundreds of millions of infected insects. And, since Latin America did indeed experience precisely such an explosive spread, the fundamental question is the source of those infected insects.
当然，理论上单个感染者引发最终流行病是可能的，但要考虑到必要的情况。一名感染者在前往新地点时被一只或多只蚊子叮咬，蚊子感染后又叮咬其他几名感染者。受感染的蚊子繁殖并死亡，留下可能被感染的后代，这些后代可以逐渐传播疾病。一开始，这将是严格本地化的，不仅在一个城市，而且可能在一个城镇的一个地区，因为我们很少有不传播的受感染蚊子。然后，感染者会逐渐转移到城市的其他地区和其他城市，并慢慢将感染传播到其他地区。但很明显，这种方法需要数年时间才能产生流行病，而且仍然无法解释新地点的爆炸性传播。根据定义，蚊子传播的病毒的自然引入和传播需要数年的发展。昆虫传播疾病爆炸性传播的唯一物理方法是感染数亿只昆虫。而且，由于拉丁美洲确实经历了如此爆炸性的传播，根本问题是这些受感染昆虫的来源。
- Oxitec’s GM “Terminator” Mosquitoes
During the 2010s, Oxitec established partnerships with agricultural industry[14] leaders and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.[15] Source
2010年代，Oxitec与农业行业[14]领导人和比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会建立了合作伙伴关系。[15] 来源
There is one additional fact in this story, a fact that was heavily suppressed by the media. It involves a company named Oxitec, which bills itself as “a British biotech company pioneering an environmentally friendly [i.e. genetically-modified] way to control insect pests that spread disease and damage crops”. Oxitec was conducting genetically-modified “transgenic mosquito trials” in Braziland many other locations, trials that, according to Science Magazine, “have not been without controversy in the past”. (9) It will not be a surprise that one of Oxitec’s “collaborators” is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as other non-surprises that include the WHO, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Rockefeller Foundation, Fort Detrick, and other luminaries of the world of genetically-modified pathogens. In particular, one article that appeared to be credible, claimed that the equity owners of Oxitec had strong links to the CIA. Other Oxitec funders are the WHO, who provide research grants, and apparently a Hong Kong investment fund called Asia Pacific Capital, which is controlled by GE Capital of the US.
这个故事还有一个额外的事实，一个被媒体严重压制的事实。它涉及一家名为Oxitec的公司，该公司自称为“一家英国生物技术公司，开创了一种环保[即转基因]的方法来控制传播疾病和破坏作物的害虫”。Oxitec正在巴西其他许多地方进行转基因“转基因蚊子试验”，据《科学杂志》报道，这些试验“过去并非没有争议”。（9） Oxitec的“合作者”之一是比尔和梅琳达·盖茨基金会，以及其他非企业，包括世界卫生组织、中央情报局、五角大楼、洛克菲勒基金会、德特里克堡和世界上其他著名的基因改造病原体，这并不奇怪。特别是，一篇看似可信的文章声称，Oxitec的股权所有者与中央情报局有着密切的联系。Oxitec的其他资助者包括提供研究资助的世界卫生组织，以及由美国通用电气金融控股的香港一家名为亚太资本的投资基金。
Oxitec was conducting “experiments in the suppression of mosquitoes”, experiments which involved the release of countless millions of genetically-modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes(the same species that spread the ZIKA virus) that had been bio-engineered for male insterility. Oliver Tickell wrote an interesting article published in The Ecologist on February 1, 2016, titled, “Pandora’s Box: how GM mosquitoes could have caused Brazil’s microcephaly disaster”. (10) In it, he wrote, “The idea of the Oxitec mosquitoes is simple enough: the males produce non-viable offspring which all die. So the GM mosquitoes are ‘self-extinguishing’ and the altered genes cannot survive in the wild population.”The theory is that these GM-modified ‘terminator’ mosquitoes will breed with native females to produce non-viable larvae, thereby eradicating the entire mosquito population. Unfortunately, the truth, even according to Oxitec’s own information, is that a large percentage of their mosquitoes are not sterile after all, that many do survive and thrive, and that apparently a large percentage of native female insects refuse to breed with these introduced GM terminators, rendering some part of the experiment useless.
Oxitec正在进行“抑制蚊子的实验”，这些实验涉及释放数百万只转基因埃及伊蚊（传播ZIKA病毒的同一物种），这些蚊子经过生物工程改造，可用于雄性生殖。奥利弗·蒂克尔于2016年2月1日在《生态学家》杂志上发表了一篇有趣的文章，题为《潘多拉盒子：转基因蚊子如何导致巴西小头畸形灾难》。（10） 他在信中写道，“Oxitec蚊子的想法很简单：雄性蚊子会产生无法存活的后代，这些后代都会死亡。因此，转基因蚊子是‘自我熄灭’的，改变后的基因无法在野生种群中存活。”理论上，这些转基因改造的‘终结者’蚊子会与本土雌性蚊子繁殖，产生无法生存的幼虫，从而消灭整个蚊子种群。不幸的是，事实是，即使根据Oxitec自己的信息，他们的蚊子中有很大一部分并不是无菌的，许多蚊子确实存活并茁壮成长，而且显然有很大一比例的本土雌性昆虫拒绝用这些引入的转基因终止子繁殖，这使得实验的某些部分毫无用处。
According to Tickell’s research, the insect dispersions occurred between May of 2011 and early 2012 and, in some locations alone, involved millions per month. I do not know the total number of locations in which mosquitoes were dispersed nor the total number of insects dispersed, but for the disease to spread the way it did, the dispersion was certainly carried out in many locations and likely involved tens of millions of insects in each case and, with several years to breed, gives us the hundreds of millions we needed. Certainly the dispersals in some instances contained massive volumes. In the Cayman Islands, Oxitec “liberated” 3.3 million of their “transgenic mosquitoes” in 80 separate releases that covered only about 16 hectares of land, and the same a bit later in Malaysia. (11) With 100 hectares in a square kilometer, how many mosquitoes would have been released in 20 million square kilometers?At this point, we can perhaps assume it was a micro-biologist from Oxitec who traveled to Brazil, but not for the World Cup. This assumption explains many things, but apparently not to the converted. Soon after, the world media were actively promoting the theory that Oxitec’s “mutant” GM mosquitoes were instead being used to battle ZIKA. (12) (13)
根据Tickell的研究，昆虫传播发生在2011年5月至2012年初，仅在一些地方，每月就涉及数百万人。我不知道蚊子被驱散的地点的总数，也不知道昆虫被驱散的总数，但为了使疾病以这种方式传播，这种传播肯定在许多地方进行，每种情况下可能涉及数千万只昆虫，在几年的繁殖时间里，它为我们提供了所需的数亿只昆虫。当然，在某些情况下，这些分散体包含了大量的分散体。在开曼群岛，Oxitec在80次单独的释放中“解放”了330万只“转基因蚊子”，仅覆盖了约16公顷的土地，稍晚在马来西亚也是如此。（11） 一平方公里有100公顷，2000万平方公里会释放多少蚊子？在这一点上，我们可以假设是Oxitec的一位微生物学家前往巴西，但不是为了世界杯。这一假设解释了很多事情，但显然对皈依者来说不是。不久之后，世界媒体积极宣传Oxitec的“变异”转基因蚊子被用来对抗寨卡病毒的理论。(12) (13)
Tickell discussed the potential survival of the GM insects and how they could spread the ZIKA infection, but ignored the much more important question of how they became infected in the first place. Let’s try a direct analogy: You do not get rabies from a dog bite; you get rabies when bitten by a rabid dog.If the dog doesn’t have rabies, all you get is a dog bite. And dispersing thousands of non-rabid dogs into a clean environment will give you only thousands of non-rabid dogs in a still-clean environment. You may get bitten much more often, but you still won’t get rabies. By this analogy, the vast dispersal of genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes is of no consequence unless the mosquitoes are already infected with the ZIKA virus. If they do not carry the virus, their bites will do nothing to their victims, leaving us with no way to spread a foreign virus.
Tickell讨论了转基因昆虫的潜在生存能力以及它们如何传播ZIKA感染，但忽略了更重要的问题，即它们最初是如何被感染的。让我们尝试一个直接的类比：你不会因为狗咬而患狂犬病；被疯狗咬了会得狂犬病。如果狗没有狂犬病，你只会被狗咬一口。将数千只未患狂犬病的狗分散到一个干净的环境中，只会让你在一个仍然清洁的环境中看到数千只未患有狂犬病的狗。你可能会更频繁地被咬，但你仍然不会患狂犬病。通过这种类比，除非转基因埃及伊蚊已经感染了ZIKA病毒，否则其大规模传播不会产生任何后果。如果它们不携带病毒，它们的叮咬对受害者毫无帮助，使我们无法传播外国病毒。
The important point, so studiously avoided by the CDC, the WHO and the media, is that since ZIKA was not endemic to Brazil or indeed to South-Central America, it had to be introduced from somewhere, and on a massive scale.One infected visitor to the World Cup cannot do that, but importing and dispersing hundreds of millions of infected mosquitoes can do that. It is not possible to disperse millions of uninfected mosquitoes into a clean environment then have them magically become self-infected by a virus whose nearest proximity is 18,000 kilometers distant, which means the insects dispersed by Oxitec had to have been infected before their dispersalbecause there is no other credible explanation for the comparatively instantaneous explosion of ZIKA in so many millions of square kilometers, events that appeared to coincide with the dispersion of Oxitec’s insects. The question then is how a company like Oxitec could disperse millions of insects without knowing they were infected.After all, they engineered the mosquitoes, they surely were aware of the dangers, and certainly had the ability to do testing. The only possible conclusion I see, is that they did know. If there is an alternative explanation, I cannot imagine what it would be.
疾病预防控制中心、世界卫生组织和媒体极力避免的重要一点是，由于ZIKA不是巴西或中南美洲的地方病，因此必须从某个地方大规模引进。一名受感染的世界杯游客无法做到这一点，但进口和传播数亿只受感染的蚊子可以做到这一步。不可能将数百万未感染的蚊子分散到一个干净的环境中，然后让它们神奇地被一种距离最近18000公里的病毒自我感染，这意味着被Oxitec分散的昆虫在被分散之前就已经被感染了，因为没有其他可信的解释可以解释ZIKA在数百万平方公里内相对瞬时的爆炸，这些事件似乎与Oxitec昆虫的分散相吻合。现在的问题是，像Oxitec这样的公司如何在不知道数百万只昆虫被感染的情况下驱散它们。毕竟，他们设计了蚊子，他们肯定意识到了危险，当然也有能力进行测试。我看到的唯一可能的结论是，他们确实知道。如果有另一种解释，我无法想象会是什么。
I am reminded of Dr. David Heymann of the WHO who, when speaking of the identical issue of the origin and spread of HIV, claimed, “The origin of the AIDS virus is of no importance … speculation on how it arose is of no importance.” I disagreed then, and I disagree now. The WHO took enormous pains to obscure investigation into the origin and spread of that virus, and appeared to be doing the same with ZIKA. In the Scientific Method, we try to form a theory to explain the phenomena we witness. Then, if we can, we test our assumptions and hypotheses to see if they correlate with the known facts. In this case, we have unknowns and unanswered questions in a situation where the official explanation doesn’t appear plausible, and where confusion exists in some facts. But if we theorise that Oxitec carried out its field trials in these locations with infected mosquitoes our theory explains almost everything we know about ZIKA. But this isn’t quite the end of the story.
我想起了世界卫生组织的戴维·海曼博士，他在谈到艾滋病毒的起源和传播这一相同问题时声称，“艾滋病病毒的起源无关紧要……对其产生方式的猜测无关紧要。”当时我不同意，现在我也不同意。世界卫生组织煞费苦心地掩盖了对该病毒起源和传播的调查，似乎对ZIKA也采取了同样的做法。在科学方法中，我们试图形成一个理论来解释我们所目睹的现象。然后，如果可以的话，我们测试我们的假设和假设，看看它们是否与已知事实相关。在这种情况下，在官方解释似乎不可信的情况下，以及在一些事实中存在混乱的情况下我们有未知和未回答的问题。但如果我们假设Oxitec在这些地方用受感染的蚊子进行了实地试验，我们的理论几乎解释了我们所知道的关于ZIKA的一切。但故事还没有完全结束。
- Back to the Future
Many virologists and media sources inform us that the ZIKA virus was first isolated from a monkey in the ZIKA Forest in Africa (Uganda) in 1947 while scientists were researching Yellow Fever, but the more interesting parts of ZIKA’s story occurred in labs rather than forests. The virus was isolated in a laboratory by a microbiologist named Jordi Casals (14) (15), whose entire career (but for two years after graduation) was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, mostly working in labs at Yale University. Casals was a specialist in ticks and virus-borne diseases (of the kind produced by the US Military at Fort Detrick and Plum Island), as well as the viruses that cause encephalitis and the kind of hemorrhagic fever the US dispersed in North Korea during the war and later in Cuba.He was for years a consultant to the WHO and to the US Army Research Institute in Bethseda, Maryland, where he was performing concurrent work in what appeared to be related to bioweapons research.
许多病毒学家和媒体消息来源告诉我们，1947年，当科学家们研究黄热病时，ZIKA病毒首次从非洲（乌干达）ZIKA森林的一只猴子身上分离出来，但ZIKA故事中更有趣的部分发生在实验室而非森林中。该病毒是由一位名叫Jordi Casals（14）（15）的微生物学家在实验室中分离出来的，他的整个职业生涯（但毕业后的两年）都由洛克菲勒基金会资助，主要在耶鲁大学的实验室工作。Casals是蜱虫和病毒传播疾病（美国军方在德特里克堡和普鲁姆岛生产的那种疾病）的专家，以及导致脑炎和美国在战争期间在朝鲜和后来在古巴传播的那种出血热的病毒。多年来，他一直是世界卫生组织和马里兰州贝瑟达美国陆军研究所的顾问，在那里他同时从事似乎与生物武器研究有关的工作。
The media and the medical history books tell us that after its discovery, ZIKA remained an “obscure and unremarkable illness” that caused no trouble and was of no apparent interest to anybody, but that’s not entirely correct. After Casals isolated ZIKA from Rockefeller Foundation monkey number 766, a quiet interest apparently emerged in this ‘obscure’ virus, with both the WHO and America’s CDC establishing “virus research laboratories” very near the same forest where ZIKA was discovered, and in 2008 theWellcome Trust– who are coincidentally one of Oxitec’s sources of funds – also became involved in microbiology programs at the same location. (16) (17) The Rockefeller Foundation established its East African Virus Research Institute in Entebbe, Uganda, in 1936, the UVRI forming at the same time (with whom the CDC began working in 1991, the WHO joining the affiliation in 1996). (18)
媒体和医学史书告诉我们，ZIKA在被发现后，仍然是一种“晦涩而不起眼的疾病”，没有造成任何麻烦，也没有引起任何人的明显兴趣，但这并不完全正确。Casals从洛克菲勒基金会766号猴子中分离出ZIKA后，人们显然对这种“模糊”病毒产生了浓厚的兴趣，世界卫生组织和美国疾病控制与预防中心都在发现ZIKA的同一森林附近建立了“病毒研究实验室”，2008年，韦尔科姆信托基金会（Wellcome Trust）——恰好是Oxitec的资金来源之一——也在同一地点参与了微生物项目。（16） （17）洛克菲勒基金会于1936年在乌干达恩德培成立了东非病毒研究所，UVRI同时成立（疾病预防控制中心于1991年开始与之合作，世界卫生组织于1996年加入该附属机构）。(18)
More recently, when the ZIKA outbreak occurred in 2007 on the Micronesian island of Yap, the US military was reported to have sent what was described as “a large research presence” to that island, consisting of individuals from both the CDC labs at the University of Colorado and from the military, all experts in insect-vector bio-pathogens. (19) (20) (21) Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, Yap Island is only about 800 Kms. from Guam, the original site of the US military’s NAMRU-2 biowarfare lab which depended primarily on researchers from the Rockefeller Institute. And to bring us up to date with Brazil, one media report informed us that two American researchers from the University of Wisconsin, one a professor of pathobiological sciences namedJorge Osorio (22) (23), the other his assistant named Matthew Aliota, were the first to identify ZIKA virus in South America. Osorio’s assistant, Aliota, had a long history with the US Army’s bio-warfare lab, USAMRIID, located at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and was also a professor at Colorado State University, the source of the CDC’s virological staff originally sent to Yap to examine the first ZIKA outbreak. (24) (25)
最近，当寨卡病毒于2007年在密克罗尼西亚的雅普岛爆发时，据报道，美国军方向该岛派遣了所谓的“大规模研究人员”，其中包括来自科罗拉多大学疾病控制与预防中心实验室和军方的人员，他们都是昆虫媒介生物病原体方面的专家。（19） （20）（21）也许是巧合，也许不是，鸭岛只有大约800公里。关岛是美军NAMRU-2生物战实验室的原址，该实验室主要依靠洛克菲勒研究所的研究人员。为了让我们了解巴西的最新情况，一家媒体报道称，威斯康星大学的两名美国研究人员，一位是病理生物学教授Jorge Osorio（22）（23），另一位是他的助手Matthew Aliota，是第一个在南美洲发现ZIKA病毒的人。奥索里奥的助手Aliota在位于马里兰州德特里克堡的美国陆军生物战实验室USAMRIID有着悠久的历史，也是科罗拉多州立大学的教授，该大学是美国疾病控制与预防中心最初派往雅普检查第一次寨卡病毒爆发的病毒学工作人员的来源。(24) (25)
- The Microcephaly Problem
There had for many months been a flurry of media activity with reports containing an utter confusion of claims about the incidence of this condition, a multitude of false alarms causing misunderstandings and creating excessive caution. One report in the New York Times claimed that fears of the virus resulted in “massive over-reporting”. In early February of 2016, Brazil’s Health Ministry accounted for about 5,000 reported cases, but in fact only a few hundred had actually been confirmed, an insignificant number that would normally be buried within the statistical averages. Interestingly, the WHO was guilty of laying most of the fuel onto this fire, announcing an “international health emergency”, appearing primarily motivated to strongly focus public attention onto the birth defects and away from other considerations. Indeed, virtually all of the media attention appeared to focus on a few hundreds of potentially damaged fetuses and a few thousands of symptomatic mothers rather than on the millions of civilians inexplicably infected by a foreign virus of (so far) unknown provenance. In any case, the clear intent was to establish a link in the public mind between ZIKA and birth defects, going so far as to advise all mothers in South and Central America to delay planned pregnancies for several years. Much of this was alarmist and unjustified. The New England Journal of Medicine claimed that “29 percent of women who had ultrasound examinations after testing positive for infection with the ZIKA virus had fetuses that suffered [undocumented] “grave outcomes”.” (26) (27) But they neglected to mention that the total number of women in this sample was only about 40, if memory serves me correctly.
几个月来，媒体一直在进行一系列活动，报道中对这种情况的发生率完全混淆，大量虚假警报造成误解，并造成过度谨慎。《纽约时报》的一篇报道称，对病毒的恐惧导致了“大规模的过度报道”。2016年2月初，巴西卫生部报告了约5000例病例，但事实上只有几百例确诊，这是一个微不足道的数字，通常被掩盖在统计平均值内。有趣的是，世界卫生组织为这场大火火上浇油，宣布“国际卫生紧急状态”，似乎主要是为了将公众的注意力集中在出生缺陷上，而不是其他考虑。事实上，几乎所有媒体的注意力都集中在数百名可能受损的胎儿和数千名有症状的母亲身上，而不是数百万平民莫名其妙地感染了（迄今为止）来源不明的外国病毒。无论如何，明确的意图是在公众心目中建立ZIKA与出生缺陷之间的联系，甚至建议南美洲和中美洲的所有母亲将计划怀孕推迟几年。这在很大程度上是危言耸听和没有道理的。《新英格兰医学杂志》声称，“在ZIKA病毒检测呈阳性后进行超声波检查的女性中，29%的胎儿遭受了[未记录的]“严重后果”。”（26）（27）但他们忽略了提到，如果我没记错的话，这个样本中的女性总数只有大约40人。
The media reports on this problem, virtually without exception and certainly including all those from the WHO, consisted mostly of dramatic attention-getting headlines. An article would quote an apparently prominent virologist claiming his research “strongly indicated” that “the ZIKA virus, and nothing else” was responsible for the rash of birth defects. Other scientists were quoted as saying ZIKA targeted the brain cortex, leaving readers to worry that every pregnant mother in all of Latin America would give birth to a brain-damaged baby.A website calling itself the Virology Blog, run by a virologist and professor at Columbia University in the US, stated that published reports made “a compelling case that ZIKA virus is causing microcephaly in Brazil”, quoting from studies with such small samples they were statistically invalid, and even admitting no confirmations were available of ZIKA infections in the microcephaly cases studied. He even went so far as to write,“Here is the clincher – the entire ZIKA virus genome was identified in brain tissue” of an infant born with this condition. (28) Another virologist promptly informed this writer that he had all his facts wrong, and that only small sections of the virus had in fact been identified. Virology Blog – ZIKA virus is causing microcephaly in Brazil. (28)
媒体对这一问题的报道几乎无一例外，当然也包括世界卫生组织的所有报道，主要是引人注目的头条新闻。一篇文章引用了一位著名的病毒学家的话，他声称自己的研究“强烈表明”“ZIKA病毒，而不是其他病毒”是导致出生缺陷的原因。报道援引其他科学家的话说，ZIKA针对的是大脑皮层，这让读者担心整个拉丁美洲的每一位孕妇都会生下一个大脑受损的婴儿。由美国哥伦比亚大学的一位病毒学家和教授运营的一个自称为病毒学博客的网站表示，已发表的报告“有力地证明了ZIKA病毒正在巴西引起小头畸形”，引用了对如此小样本的研究，这些研究在统计上是无效的，甚至承认在所研究的小头畸形病例中没有ZIKA感染的证实。他甚至写道，“关键是——在一名患有这种疾病的婴儿的脑组织中鉴定出了整个寨卡病毒基因组”。（28）另一位病毒学家立即通知作者，他所有的事实都是错误的，事实上只发现了病毒的一小部分。病毒学博客-ZIKA病毒正在巴西引起小头畸形。(28)
Other scientists expressed their amazement that a flavivirus like ZIKA could cause birth defects when no strain or variety of flavivirus had ever done so before. They noted too that the Brazilian strain of the virus was a 99.75% match, indicating it was the same virus from other areas of the world, and that birth defects existed in none of those places. Many virologists stated that historically no flavivirus had ever been implicated in birth defects, claiming the conditions pointed to a “localised environmental factor” or some other cause. Dr. Ahmed Kalebi, Director of the Lancet Pathology Research Group, echoed a similar sentiment, stating the possibility that “ZIKA is just a red herring and there is something else . . . that makes those babies get microcephaly”. And a published study posted on the WHO website stated, “ZIKA has been identified in Africa over 50 years ago, and neither there nor in the outbreaks outside Africa, has such an association with microcephaly [ever] been reported.” Another virologist wrote that there was no proof of a cause-effect relationship, that the ZIKA virus might just have been “infecting opportunistically, and that these are cases that would have developed birth defects even without it”. Others noted that the apparent surge in these cases occurred only in Northeastern Brazil, primarily in Pernambuco in and near Recife (where the WHO-recommended insecticide pyroxiprophen was being sprayed), and many noted that there was no actual proof of correlation between ZIKA and microcephaly, other than the fact that the virus had been found in some infants with the condition. Unfortunately, none of these other voices were ever able to reach the microphone.
其他科学家对像ZIKA这样的黄病毒会导致出生缺陷表示惊讶，而以前从未有任何毒株或变种的黄病毒这样做过。他们还指出，巴西毒株的匹配率为99.75%，这表明它是来自世界其他地区的同一种病毒，而且这些地方都不存在出生缺陷。许多病毒学家表示，历史上从未有黄病毒与出生缺陷有关，并声称这些情况表明是“局部环境因素”或其他原因。《柳叶刀》病理学研究小组主任Ahmed Kalebi博士也表达了类似的观点，他表示“ZIKA只是转移注意力，还有其他东西……会让这些婴儿患小头畸形”。世界卫生组织网站上发布的一项已发表的研究称，“50多年前就在非洲发现了ZIKA，无论是在非洲还是在非洲以外的疫情中，都没有报告过这种与小头畸形的关联。”另一位病毒学家写道，没有证据表明存在因果关系，ZIKA病毒可能只是“偶然感染，即使没有它，这些病例也会出现出生缺陷”。其他人指出，这些病例的明显激增仅发生在巴西东北部，主要发生在累西腓州的伯南布哥州及其附近（世卫组织推荐的杀虫剂pyroxipuren正在那里喷洒），许多人指出，除了在一些患有这种疾病的婴儿身上发现了这种病毒之外，没有实际证据表明ZIKA与小头畸形之间存在相关性。不幸的是，这些其他声音都无法到达麦克风。
And there is more. I downloaded a study from the WHO’s own website, titled “Microcephaly in northeastern Brazil: a review of 16,208 births between 2012 and 2015” (29) that states in part, “However, if the ZIKV were indeed introduced in Brazil at the World Cup in mid 2014, the outbreak of microcephaly would have preceded it.” In case this isn’t clear, the authors of this paper documented that microcephaly began appearing in Brazil in 2011 and 2012, well prior to the appearance of the claimed “visitor from Polynesia”, which by itself would seem irrefutable proof that the ZIKA virus cannot be responsible for the birth defects in Latin America. Not only that, according to this same paper, the initial appearances of microcephaly would have coincided perfectly with the spraying of pyroxiprophenand the timing of Oxitec’s GM mosquito dispersal program. Certainly the WHO was fully aware of this information, and the media pundits either were aware or should have been aware, but these crucial facts were entirely censored by all the media. In March of 2016, Canada’s CBC reported on another study in Paraíba State in Brazil, which lies next to Perambuco, and which also discovered cases of microcephaly prior to 2012, a full two years before the appearance of the supposed Polynesian visitor, and which confirmed as well that these cases have been concentrated in Brazil’s Northeast where the bulk of the chemical spraying was done. (30) (31) (32) (33) Nevertheless, the New York Times was telling us “There is no longer any doubt that Zika causes microcephaly”, quoting a study of ZIKA at estimated a “1 in 100” risk of microcephaly. (34) (35)
还有更多。我从世界卫生组织自己的网站上下载了一项题为“巴西东北部的小头畸形：2012年至2015年16208例出生的回顾”的研究（29），其中部分指出，“然而，如果ZIKV确实在2014年年中的世界杯上在巴西引入，那么小头畸形的爆发早在它之前。”如果这一点不清楚，这篇论文的作者记录了2011年和2012年，在声称的“波利尼西亚访客”出现之前，小头畸形就开始在巴西出现，这本身似乎是无可辩驳的证据，证明ZIKA病毒不能对拉丁美洲的出生缺陷负责。不仅如此，根据同一篇论文，小头症的最初出现与喷洒吡喃昔布仑和Oxitec的转基因蚊子传播计划的时间完全吻合。当然，世界卫生组织完全知道这些信息，媒体专家要么知道，要么应该知道，但这些关键事实被所有媒体完全审查。2016年3月，加拿大广播公司报道了在巴西帕拉伊巴州进行的另一项研究，该州位于佩兰布科附近，在2012年之前，也就是所谓的波利尼西亚游客出现整整两年之前，也发现了小头畸形病例，该研究也证实了这些病例集中在巴西东北部，大部分化学喷雾都是在那里进行的。（30）（31）（32）（33）然而，《纽约时报》告诉我们，“毫无疑问，寨卡病毒会导致小头畸形”，并引用了一项对寨卡病毒的研究，估计小头畸形的风险为“1/100”。(34) (35)
- The Media Focus
- The Media Focus
CDC IMAGES FOR FACEBOOK/TWITTER.Source
脸书/推特的CDC图片。来源
In the extensive media coverage of the ZIKA epidemic, several elements were not only unusual but were so uniformly focused they had a distinct appearance of having been coordinated as part of plan. The first of these I have already discussed: the apparent absence of any interest whatever in the source of the ZIKA infection. Aside from the almost-flippant attribution of a sudden and massive international outbreak of ZIKA to a single traveler from Polynesia, I was unable to find any reference, question or investigation by any part of the Western mainstream media as to alternative explanations. It seems that no scientist or reporter in the Western world had any apparent interest in this critical matter, a circumstance I find almost bizarre. Every newspaper, TV station, publication, that I could monitor, studiously avoided any mention of alternative explanations of the source of millions of infected mosquitoes. With every other disease outbreak in the recent past, we have had various theories and consequent debates as to source and origin, but not this time. This is exceedingly curious, since the officially-attributed source is clearly impossible.
在媒体对寨卡疫情的广泛报道中，有几个因素不仅不同寻常，而且集中度如此之高，它们看起来明显是作为计划的一部分进行了协调。我已经讨论过的第一个问题是：对ZIKA感染的来源显然没有任何兴趣。除了将寨卡病毒的突然大规模国际爆发几乎轻率地归因于一名来自波利尼西亚的旅行者之外，我找不到任何西方主流媒体关于替代解释的参考、问题或调查。西方世界似乎没有一位科学家或记者对这一关键问题有任何明显的兴趣，我觉得这种情况几乎很奇怪。我能监测到的每一份报纸、电视台、出版物都刻意避免提及对数百万受感染蚊子来源的其他解释。在最近的每一次其他疾病爆发中，我们都有关于来源和起源的各种理论和随之而来的争论，但这次没有。这是非常奇怪的，因为官方认定的来源显然是不可能的。
The second element was a persistent coordinated focus on the relatively few instances of microcephaly to the neglect of almost every other aspect, leading one to conclude the outbreak might consist of millions of microcephaly cases instead of instances of a minor virus infection. This was true not only with the Western mass media but also with internet searches. In repeated searches for the incidence of total ZIKA infections in Brazil and other South American nations, Google repeatedly produced only information on births with apparent ZIKA-related defects. I will note here that Google’s searches are often highly selective in a manner not entirely explained by an autonomous algorithm. When repeated and diligent searches on one topic produce only results on another topic, it is safe for us to conclude that someone is pulling the strings. In broad searches for rates of ZIKA infection, Google’s entire emphasis was on supposedly ZIKA-related microcephaly cases, and searches for percentages produced more of the same “reported but unconfirmed” statistics misleadingly quoted to infer that a very high percentage of births were defective – which was absolutely not the case. Let’s look at some statistics.
第二个因素是持续协调地关注相对较少的小头畸形病例，而忽略了几乎所有其他方面，导致人们得出结论，疫情可能由数百万小头畸形病例组成，而不是轻微的病毒感染病例。这不仅适用于西方大众媒体，也适用于互联网搜索。在反复搜索巴西和其他南美国家的寨卡病毒总感染率时，谷歌反复只提供与寨卡病毒明显相关缺陷的出生信息。我在这里要注意的是，谷歌的搜索往往是高度选择性的，其方式并不完全由自主算法来解释。当对一个话题反复而勤奋的搜索只会在另一个话题上产生结果时，我们可以放心地得出结论，认为有人在幕后操纵。在对寨卡病毒感染率的广泛搜索中，谷歌的全部重点都放在了据称与寨卡病毒相关的小头畸形病例上，而对百分比的搜索产生了更多相同的“报告但未经证实”的统计数据，这些统计数据被误导性地引用，从而推断出很高比例的出生是有缺陷的——事实并非如此。让我们看看一些统计数据。
The total population of South and Central America is almost 450 million, with reported ZIKA infections projected to total perhaps 4 million overall. This means that less than 1% of the total populations of these countries will be infected with the ZIKA virus, of which a very small portion (perhaps only 1% or 2% at any given time) will be pregnant mothers. Remember too, that there were only a few hundred confirmed microcephaly cases and only about 1% of those contained any link with ZIKA. This means that of all the pregnancies in Brazil, perhaps one ten-thousandth will result in microcephaly and, as noted above, only about 1% of these would exhibit a ZIKA infection. I by no means wish to trivialise individual tragedies but, with confirmed cases measured as a percentage of the population or by the incidence of all other primary causes of diseases and deaths, the incidence of microcephaly in Brazil was statistically zero, whether ZIKA-induced or not.
南美洲和中美洲的总人口近4.5亿，据报道，寨卡病毒感染总数预计约为400万。这意味着，在这些国家的总人口中，只有不到1%的人会感染寨卡病毒，其中很小一部分（在任何时候可能只有1%或2%）是孕妇。还要记住，只有几百例确诊的小头畸形病例，其中只有大约1%与ZIKA有任何联系。这意味着，在巴西的所有妊娠中，可能有万分之一会导致小头畸形，如上所述，其中只有约1%会出现寨卡病毒感染。我决不想轻视个人悲剧，但根据确诊病例占人口的百分比或所有其他主要疾病和死亡原因的发生率来衡量，无论ZIKA是否诱发，巴西小头畸形的发生率在统计上为零。
The next concern was what appeared to be a widespread and deliberate program of fear-mongering, with a coordinated focus that I anticipated but found disturbing nonetheless. Even the adjuncts were designed to be unsettling and frightening. For one article on ZIKA, the Washington Post employed a photographic setting of a statue guarding a tomb in a cemetery, with the caption, “Flower urns at many graves are breeding grounds for the disease-carrying mosquitoes.”Why a cemetery setting? Why the photo of graves? How many people had died from contracting ZIKA? Approximately none. The Washington Post screamed that “The more we learn, the worse things seem to get”. It told us of the virus “sweeping through the hemisphere” and wrote of the “growing links to birth defects and neurological disorders” which were even “worse than originally suspected”, and warning of the “increasing the risk for devastating harm” during pregnancy. The Washington Post told us, “Brazilians panic as mosquito linked to brain damage in thousands of babies” (36) (37), and Canada’s Globe and Mail told us that “As the virus ravages Brazil”, several hundred babies were left “with devastated brains” (38), while failing to mention that Canada’s House of Parliament has suffered the same condition for decades.
接下来的担忧似乎是一个广泛而蓄意的散布恐惧的计划，其重点是协调一致，我预料到了这一点，但仍然感到不安。即使是副官也被设计成令人不安和恐惧。在ZIKA上的一篇文章中，《华盛顿邮报》采用了一个墓地里守卫坟墓的雕像的摄影背景，并配文“许多坟墓里的花urns是携带疾病的蚊子的繁殖地。”为什么要设置墓地？为什么是坟墓的照片？有多少人死于感染寨卡病毒？几乎没有。《华盛顿邮报》尖叫道：“我们学到的越多，事情似乎就越糟糕”。它告诉我们病毒“席卷半球”，并写道“与出生缺陷和神经系统疾病的联系越来越紧密”，这些疾病甚至“比最初怀疑的更严重”，并警告说怀孕期间“毁灭性伤害的风险越来越大”。《华盛顿邮报》告诉我们，“由于蚊子与数千名婴儿的大脑损伤有关，巴西人感到恐慌”（36）（37），加拿大《环球邮报》告诉他们，“随着病毒肆虐巴西”，数百名婴儿“大脑受损”（38），但没有提及加拿大国会众议院几十年来一直遭受同样的疾病。
Thomas Frieden, Director of the US-based CDC, said he expected cases to increase “dramatically” (39), and that “The cost of caring for one child with birth defects can be $10 million or more”. He tearfully told us, according to the Washington Post, of one woman “who was fearful of what would happen to her baby. To quote, “She said, ‘I will be worried for my whole life, and even after I die, who is going to take care of the baby’.” We were further informed that “studies showed” ZIKA was “likely behind more birth defects and problems than researchers realised”, and was linked to “a broad array of birth defects and neurological disorders”. As an aside, WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan said ZIKA had gone “from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions”, and that she had set up a ZIKA “emergency team” after the “explosive” spread of the virus. (40) But as you will read elsewhere, Margaret Chan apparently wasn’t concerned about Ebola that was killing by the tens of thousands, to the extent that the WHO stopped answering their phones so people wouldn’t continue to bother them with updates. It took years for Ebola – and other serious outbreaks, including the H5N1 flu and SARS in Hong Kong – to become “alarming” and explosive” and require Margaret Chan to establish an “emergency team”, so why all the fuss about ZIKA that killed nobody? To continue, the Washington Post further informed us:
美国疾病控制与预防中心主任托马斯·弗里登表示，他预计病例将“急剧”增加（39），“照顾一个出生缺陷儿童的费用可能达到1000万美元或更多”。据《华盛顿邮报》报道，他含泪告诉我们，有一位女性“害怕自己的孩子会发生什么。”引用她的话，“她说，‘我会担心我的一生，甚至在我死后，谁来照顾孩子’。”我们进一步获悉，“研究表明”ZIKA“可能是比研究人员意识到的更多的出生缺陷和问题的幕后黑手”，并与“一系列出生缺陷和神经系统疾病”有关。顺便说一句，世界卫生组织总干事陈冯富珍博士表示，ZIKA已经“从轻度威胁发展到令人震惊的程度”，在病毒“爆炸性”传播后，她成立了ZIKA“应急小组”。（40）但正如你在其他地方看到的那样，陈冯富珍显然并不担心正在导致数万人死亡的埃博拉病毒，以至于世界卫生组织停止接听他们的电话，这样人们就不会继续用最新消息来打扰他们。埃博拉——以及其他严重疫情，包括香港的H5N1流感和SARS——花了数年时间才变得“令人震惊”和爆炸性，并要求陈冯富珍成立一个“应急小组”，那么，为什么对ZIKA的一切大惊小怪都没有造成任何人死亡呢？继续，《华盛顿邮报》进一步通知我们：
“A growing concern among pediatricians is that ZIKA could inflict harm to developing brain tissue in other, less obvious ways than microcephaly. That condition could be the “tip of the iceberg” of a series of neurological problems, some of which might not show up in the brain scans used to spot microcephaly, and it might not even show up for years to come, These could include epilepsy, behavioral problems and mental retardation, “It could be that these children are born with a normal head size but manifest other problems later in life”.” From this, we must gather that now even those babies appearing normal at birth are by no means safe or healthy, that they might appear normal today but may very well become delinquent, epileptic and mentally retarded at undetermined points in the future. So we have not only a strong focus on the relatively few cases of confirmed birth defects, but solemn and somber warnings that all births in the entirety of Latin America are suspect far into the indefinite future.
儿科医生越来越担心的是，ZIKA可能会以其他比小头畸形更不明显的方式对发育中的脑组织造成伤害。这种情况可能是一系列神经问题的“冰山一角”，其中一些问题可能不会出现在用于发现小头畸形的大脑扫描中，甚至可能在未来几年都不会出现。这些问题可能包括癫痫、行为问题和智力迟钝。”“可能是这些孩子出生时头部大小正常，但在以后的生活中会出现其他问题”由此，我们必须认识到，现在即使是那些出生时看起来正常的婴儿也绝非安全或健康，他们今天可能看起来正常，但很可能在未来的某个不确定的时刻成为犯罪、癫痫和智力迟钝的人。因此，我们不仅高度关注相对较少的确诊出生缺陷病例，而且严肃而悲观地警告说，在无限的未来，整个拉丁美洲的所有出生都是可疑的。
In such a case, what does one do? Fortunately, the WHO, Western medical “experts”, and the Washington Post, all reading from the same page, had the ready answer: legalised abortions. And this was the final, and extraordinarily vocal, thrust of the media coverage. And I have to say, I found this to be suspicious as hell. Reading from beginning to end, it was difficult to avoid concluding that the purpose of the exaggerated focus on the birth defects to the exclusion of all else, coupled with the intense fear-mongering that followed, were simply the prelude to the main act which was to force a change in South America’s abortion laws. The fear-mongering paid off to some extent: The governments of many countries in South and Central America, aided immeasurably by some elements of the media and countless NGOs, advised all women to delay any planned pregnancies until 2018.
在这种情况下，我们该怎么办？幸运的是，世界卫生组织、西方医学“专家”和《华盛顿邮报》都在同一页上读到了现成的答案：堕胎合法化。这是媒体报道的最后一个，也是非常响亮的主旨。我不得不说，我发现这非常可疑。从头至尾，我们很难避免得出这样的结论：过分关注出生缺陷而排斥其他一切的目的，加上随之而来的强烈的恐惧情绪，只是迫使改变南美洲堕胎法的主要法案的前奏。散布恐惧在一定程度上得到了回报：南美洲和中美洲许多国家的政府在媒体和无数非政府组织的大力帮助下，建议所有妇女将任何计划怀孕推迟到2018年。
The New York Times, Bloomberg, Canada’s Public Health Service and others were instructing Latin American women to avoid pregnancy (41) (42) (43) (44), while the Washington Post ran an article on January 22, 2016 in which it informed that Latin American countries were advising women to not only postpone pregnancies but to avoid sex altogether. (45) But then it launched into what I thought was an extraordinary propaganda piece on abortion in Latin America. It told us that the topic is “Taboo in election campaigns”, then “estimated” the total number of induced abortions at well over 850,000 per year, stating that perhaps ten million women had obtained illegal abortions in Brazil alone during the prior ten years. In other words, roughly a third of all pregnancies in Brazil had been aborted. And a group known as the Pan American Health Organization, a sister to Margaret Chan’s WHO, produced a study claiming the numbers were well over one million per year. (46) And not only that, but more than 20% of all women in Brazil have had “at least one abortion” – this in a country where abortions are illegal. But, according to these “experts”, it is clear that such a prohibition “does not prevent women resorting to abortion”. I guess not. These “experts” even admitted their figures were “ridiculously high”, but used this as proof that abortions would not increase if they were legalised – which was the thrust of the entire argument and the purpose of the almost certainly fabricated facts. The fear-mongering further reared its ugly head with an (undocumented and certainly false) tale of one woman who “disappeared after entering an illegal abortion clinic”, the article confiding to us that “She would have died during the procedure and police suspect that her body was burned and dismembered”. With risks like this, we should conclude that Brazilian women are nothing if not courageous,though I would have thought the more common procedure would be to dismember first and burn later. But then maybe things are different in Brazil.
《纽约时报》、彭博社、加拿大公共卫生服务局和其他机构正在指示拉丁美洲妇女避免怀孕（41）（42）（43）（44），而《华盛顿邮报》在2016年1月22日发表了一篇文章，报道称拉丁美洲国家建议妇女不仅要推迟怀孕，还要完全避免性行为。（45）但后来它变成了一篇我认为非同寻常的关于拉丁美洲堕胎的宣传文章。它告诉我们，这个话题是“竞选活动中的禁忌”，然后“估计”每年人工流产的总数远远超过85万，并表示在过去十年中，仅巴西就有1000万妇女非法堕胎。换言之，巴西约有三分之一的孕妇流产。一个名为泛美卫生组织的组织，陈冯富珍的世界卫生组织的姐妹，进行了一项研究，声称每年的数字远远超过100万。（46）不仅如此，巴西超过20%的女性“至少堕胎过一次”——在一个堕胎是非法的国家。但是，根据这些“专家”的说法，很明显，这样的禁令“并不能阻止妇女堕胎”。我想不会。这些“专家”甚至承认他们的数字“高得离谱”，但以此作为证据，证明如果堕胎合法化，堕胎不会增加——这是整个论点的主旨，也是几乎可以肯定的捏造事实的目的。关于一名妇女“在进入非法堕胎诊所后失踪”的故事（没有记录，当然是虚假的），这篇文章向我们透露，“她会在手术过程中死亡，警方怀疑她的尸体被焚烧和肢解”，这进一步引起了恐慌。有了这样的风险，我们应该得出结论，巴西妇女即使没有勇气，也算不了什么，尽管我本以为更常见的程序是先肢解后焚烧。但也许巴西的情况有所不同。
The Washington Post ran another article on February 8, 2016, titled, “ZIKA prompts urgent debate about abortion in Latin America” (47), in which they stated (much too gleefully, I thought) that calls to loosen restrictive abortion laws were “gaining momentum”, and that “activists” were “pressing lawmakers” to act swiftly in removing these laws. According to the Post, the pro-abortion lobby was “taking advantage of this to liberalize the legislation”, and one spokesman for a pro-abortion NGO named ‘Bureau for the Life and Health of Women’ hoped that “ZIKA would change the debate”. (48) (49) We were also informed of another Canadian NGO named ‘Women on Web’, who specialise in shipping abortion-inducing drugs through the mail (for a “donation” of $100) into countries where abortions are prohibited by law.The article informed us that, sadly, “Often, government customs inspectors seize the pills.” No idea why.“And a columnist named Hélio Schwartsman wrote that he has interviewed a woman that said if she were pregnant and discovered she’d been infected by ZIKA, “I would not hesitate an instant to abort”, dismemberment and subsequent incineration apparently being an insufficient disincentive. (50) (51) I should note here that the Washington Post and all other Western media, while positively glowing about the prospects of abortion being legalised in South and Central America, neglected to mention that all the “activists”, the NGOs, and the “pro-abortion lobbies” were all US-based or US-funded, as well as often being US-managed, many or most closely connected to USAID and US-based Planned Parenthood, who are in turn the Great-Grandfather and Great-Grandmother of eugenics, abortion, forced sterilisation, and population reduction.
《华盛顿邮报》在2016年2月8日发表了另一篇文章，题为“ZIKA引发了拉丁美洲关于堕胎的紧急辩论”（47），他们在文章中表示（我认为这太高兴了），放松限制性堕胎法的呼声正在“愈演愈烈”，“活动家”正在“敦促立法者”迅速采取行动废除这些法律。据《华盛顿邮报》报道，支持堕胎的游说团体正在“利用这一点放宽立法”，一个名为“妇女生命与健康局”的支持堕胎的非政府组织的发言人希望“ZIKA能改变辩论”。（48）（49）我们还获悉，另一家名为“网上妇女”的加拿大非政府组织专门通过邮件（“捐赠”100美元）向法律禁止堕胎的国家运送堕胎诱导药物。这篇文章告诉我们，可悲的是，“政府海关检查员经常没收这些药丸。”不知道为什么。”一位名叫Hélio Schwartsman的专栏作家写道，他采访了一位女性，她说，如果她怀孕了，发现自己感染了ZIKA，“我会毫不犹豫地堕胎”，肢解和随后的焚烧显然是不够的抑制因素。（50）（51）我在这里应该注意到，《华盛顿邮报》和所有其他西方媒体在积极宣传堕胎在南美洲和中美洲合法化的前景的同时，忽略了提及所有“活动家”、非政府组织和“支持堕胎的游说团”都是美国的或由美国资助的，而且往往由美国管理，其中许多或与美国国际开发署和美国计划生育组织关系最密切，他们反过来又是优生学、堕胎、强制绝育和人口减少的曾祖父和曾祖母。
Then the New York Times, not one to be left out of the excitement, ran an article by a Simon Romero, informing that “ZIKA Virus Has Brazilians Re-examining Strict Abortion Laws”, and that “the surging reports” of babies with microcephaly “are igniting a fierce debate” over the country’s abortion laws.Romero also noted that (American) “abortion rights activists are seizing on the crisis” to change the country’s laws. (52)”Pregnant women across Brazil are now in a panic”, he tells us, which is no great surprise given “the surging reports” and the extraordinary amount of fear-mongering the media contributed to aid their momentum. After reading all the Western media stories, I’d be in a panic too. He noted that “some activists”, American as usual, compare this to the US debate on abortion following measles infections in that country, a situation that “paved the way” for abortion in California and then most states in the US. “The fears over the ZIKA virus are giving us a rare opening to challenge the religious fundamentalists who put the lives of thousands of women at risk in Brazil each year to maintain laws belonging in the dark ages.”
随后，《纽约时报》（the New York Times）刊登了西蒙·罗梅罗（Simon Romero）的一篇文章，报道称“ZIKA病毒让巴西人重新审视严格的堕胎法”，关于小头畸形婴儿的“激增报道”正在引发一场关于该国堕胎法的激烈辩论。罗梅罗还指出，（美国）“堕胎权活动家正在抓住这场危机”修改国家法律。（52）“巴西各地的孕妇现在都很恐慌”，他告诉我们，这并不令人惊讶，因为“激增的报道”和媒体对其势头的巨大宣传。看完所有西方媒体的报道后，我也会感到恐慌。他指出，“一些活动人士”，像往常一样，是美国人，将其与美国在该国麻疹感染后关于堕胎的辩论进行了比较，这种情况为加利福尼亚州和美国大多数州的堕胎“铺平了道路”
It needs to be noted somewhere that casual abortions as a means of birth control may not necessarily qualify as a “universal value”. People and societies in different countries are entitled to form their own values, especially those values involving human life, without the belligerent assistance of either Planned Parenthood or the Washington Post, and if the countries in Latin America want to restrict abortions or if China wants to restrict pornography, it is nobody else’s business and is a gross violation of sovereignty to attempt to force our Western or other values onto them. We formed our values, such as they are, without interference from others, and they have the right to do the same.
需要注意的是，作为一种节育手段的随意堕胎不一定符合“普遍价值”。不同国家的人民和社会有权在没有计划生育组织或《华盛顿邮报》的好战援助的情况下形成自己的价值观，特别是那些涉及人类生命的价值观。如果拉丁美洲国家想限制堕胎或中国想限制色情制品，那么试图将我们的西方或其他价值观强加给他们是不关其他人的事，是对主权的严重侵犯。我们在不受他人干涉的情况下形成了我们的价值观，他们也有权这样做。
It is a truth in all matters involving foreign affairs, most especially those carrying significant social, political or economic implications, that there are no fortuitous events, no “coincidences”, that all things happen because they are planned, with the final result inevitably being according to expectation and plan. How then do we think about ZIKA? It seems implausible that the intense onslaught by the WHO and the media, wildly exaggerating what appeared to be non-existent dangers, was simply unintelligent and purposeless fear-mongering. This, and the sudden overwhelming push for legalised abortions were too unanimous, too widespread, and too well-orchestrated to have been merely opportunistic. How then do we think about Oxitec’s release of hundreds of millions of mosquitoes that were almost certainly infected with ZIKA? How do we think about the unanimous official narrative of ZIKA packing its bags and traveling halfway around the world to Brazil at the time of the World Cup? A coincidence? How do we think about ZIKA choosing as its new home the one place in the world with concentrated abortion restrictions? How do we think about the media ignoring the logic in these questions and trashing anyone who raised them?
事实上，在所有涉及外交事务的事务中，尤其是那些具有重大社会、政治或经济影响的事务，不存在偶然事件，不存在“巧合”，所有事情的发生都是有计划的，最终结果不可避免地是按照预期和计划进行的。那么我们如何看待ZIKA呢？世界卫生组织和媒体的猛烈抨击，大肆夸大似乎不存在的危险，完全是不明智和无目的的恐吓。这一点，以及突然对合法堕胎的压倒性推动，似乎太一致、太广泛、太精心策划，不可能只是机会主义。那么，我们如何看待Oxitec释放的数亿只蚊子几乎肯定感染了ZIKA？我们如何看待ZIKA在世界杯期间收拾行李环游半个世界前往巴西的一致官方说法？巧合？我们如何看待ZIKA选择世界上堕胎限制集中的地方作为新家？我们如何看待媒体忽视这些问题的逻辑，诋毁提出这些问题的人？
What were the results of the ZIKA outbreak?The most noticeable was an unparalleled opportunity to raise a critical mass clamoring for legalised abortions, but there were others. Media reports estimated South America would lose at least $53 billion in tourism revenue from the widely-advised travel restrictions. (53) (54) Metropole would have to search hard indeed to find a more convenient economic sanction for a recalcitrant socialist periphery. And of course, economic hardship coupled with public fear and panic easily decay into social unrest, and are the precursor of choice as a seedbed for regime change. We have seen all of these, and more.
ZIKA疫情的结果是什么？最引人注目的是一个无与伦比的机会，让人们大声疾呼堕胎合法化，但也有其他机会。媒体报道估计，由于广泛建议的旅行限制，南美洲将损失至少530亿美元的旅游收入。（53）（54）Metropole确实必须努力寻找一个更方便的经济制裁，以应对顽固的社会主义外围国家。当然，经济困难加上公众的恐惧和恐慌很容易演变成社会动荡，并成为政权更迭的温床。我们已经看到了所有这些，甚至更多。
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
*
Notes
(1) https://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/timeline/en/
(2) https://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/history/en
(3) https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-171082/en
(4) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zika-monsanto-pyriproxyfen-microcephaly_n_56c2712de4b0b40245c79f7c
(5) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40067
(6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5760164/
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/microcephaly-brazil-zika-reality-1.3442580
(8) https://www.reuters.com/article/health-zika-brazil-exclusive-idUSKCN0VA33F
(9) https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0111-9a
(11) http://www.genewatch.org/sub-566989
(13) https://www.builtreport.com/genetically-modified-mosquitos-to-fight-zika-virus/
(14) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC390228/
(15) https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/11/5/471/htm
(17) https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/uganda/default.htm
(18) http://hardnoxandfriends.com/2020/04/09/where-oh-where-did-zika-virus-go-after-2016/
(20)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-0691.12707/full
(21) https://health.mil/News/Articles/2019/07/01/Zika-Virus-Surveillance
(22) https://mhdtg.wisc.edu/staff/osorio-dvm-phd-jorge/
(23) https://vetmed.umn.edu/bio/college-of-veterinary-medicine/matthew-aliota
(27) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-fetus-idUSKCN0W62Q1
(28) https://www.virology.ws/2016/01/28/zika-virus/
(29) https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-171223.pdf
(30) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/microcephaly-brazil-zika-reality-1.3442580
(32) https://inhabitat.com/is-zika-the-real-cause-of-microcephaly-in-brazil-new-study-raises-questions/
(33) https://globalnews.ca/news/2512640/is-zika-virus-causing-a-spike-in-microcephaly-in-babies/
(34) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/health/zika-virus-causes-birth-defects-cdc.html
(35) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/health/zika-virus-microcephaly-rate.html
(38) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-globe-in-brazil-zikas-groundzero/article28934757/
(39) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/dr-thomas-frieden-cdc-chief-zika-will-be-sobering-/
(41) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/health/zika-virus-women-pregnancy.html
(42) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/health/zika-virus-pregnancy-who.html
(44) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/zika-virus/pregnant-planning-pregnancy.html
(45) https://www.washingtonpost.com/zika-and-pregnancy/bf70c3c4-23e0-4981-9ff3-3624ffcdef0c_note.html (avoid sex)
(52) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/world/americas/zika-virus-brazil-abortion-laws.html
(54) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/rio-olympics-zika-amir-attaran-public-health-threat
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024
