Zika: Covering for Pesticides and Vaccines

An Essay

This essay draws on Dawn Lester and David Parker’s What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong (2019), Forrest Maready’s Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained (2018), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s The Real Anthony Fauci (2021). Additional material is drawn from Brazilian Ministry of Health documents and WHO publications.

---

The Geographic Coincidence

In late 2015, doctors in northeastern Brazil began reporting an unusual cluster of microcephaly cases—babies born with abnormally small heads and underdeveloped brains. The numbers were alarming. By early 2016, the Brazilian Ministry of Health had recorded thousands of suspected cases, concentrated heavily in the impoverished states of Pernambuco, Bahia, and Paraíba. The medical establishment moved quickly to identify a cause: a previously obscure mosquito-borne pathogen called the Zika virus.

The Zika explanation presented an immediate problem. The virus had been endemic to parts of Africa and Asia for decades. It was first isolated in Uganda in 1947. Outbreaks had occurred in Micronesia in 2007 and French Polynesia in 2013. In none of these regions, across nearly seventy years of documented circulation, had Zika ever been associated with microcephaly or other serious birth defects. The symptoms of Zika infection were consistently described as mild: fever, rash, joint pain, conjunctivitis. Most infected people experienced no symptoms at all. The virus was so benign that it rarely warranted medical attention.

Yet within months of the Brazilian outbreak, public health authorities declared with increasing confidence that Zika caused microcephaly. The CDC announced in April 2016 that “enough evidence has accumulated to conclude that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of microcephaly and other severe fetal brain defects.” The World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Athletes withdrew from the 2016 Rio Olympics. Pregnant women across the Americas were advised to postpone travel. Billions of dollars in research funding were mobilized.

The regions of Brazil reporting the highest concentrations of microcephaly cases shared another characteristic that received far less attention. These same areas had been subjected to intensive pesticide spraying programs. The campaigns targeted mosquito larvae in drinking water supplies and involved chemicals known to be teratogenic—capable of causing developmental abnormalities in fetuses. The geographic overlap between heavy pesticide use and microcephaly clusters was striking. It was also, for the most part, ignored.

What Actually Causes Birth Defects

The World Health Organization’s fact sheet on congenital anomalies contains a revealing admission: “Although approximately 50% of all congenital anomalies cannot be linked to a specific cause, there are some known genetic, environmental and other causes or risk factors.” Half of all birth defects have no identified cause. The medical establishment does not know why they occur.

Among the causes that are known, toxic chemical exposure features prominently. Teratogens—substances capable of disrupting fetal development—include pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, certain pharmaceuticals, and radiation. The WHO fact sheet itself acknowledges that “maternal exposure to certain pesticides and other chemicals, as well as certain medications, alcohol, tobacco and radiation during pregnancy, may increase the risk of having a fetus or neonate affected by congenital anomalies.”

The endocrine system regulates reproduction, growth, and development. Chemicals that disrupt endocrine function can interfere with these processes at concentrations far below those traditionally considered toxic. Dr. Theo Colborn’s research on endocrine-disrupting chemicals demonstrated that hormones operate at parts per trillion. Traditional toxicology assumed that the dose makes the poison—that smaller amounts mean smaller effects. Endocrine disruptors do not follow this rule. Tiny exposures during critical windows of fetal development can produce permanent damage.

A 2009 study published in Acta Paediatrica titled “Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States” found a significant association between agricultural chemical exposure and congenital anomalies. The researchers noted that “there is a growing body of evidence that agrichemical exposures may contribute to birth defects.” Glyphosate, organophosphates, organochlorines, and other pesticide classes have all been linked to developmental abnormalities in peer-reviewed research.

The CDC’s own guidance for women planning pregnancy includes advice to “avoid toxic substances and other environmental contaminants, harmful materials at work or at home, such as synthetic chemicals, metals, fertilizer, bug spray.” The irony is substantial. The agency that declared Zika the cause of microcephaly also advises pregnant women to avoid precisely the kinds of chemicals that were being sprayed in the affected regions of Brazil.

Viruses, by contrast, have no established mechanism for causing the kind of developmental brain damage seen in microcephaly. A virus is a particle of genetic material in a protein coat. It lacks the biological machinery to directly interfere with the complex hormonal signaling that guides fetal brain development. The leap from “virus detected in some affected pregnancies” to “virus causes developmental brain defects” required ignoring decades of research on teratogenic chemicals while embracing an unprecedented causal claim about a virus previously considered harmless.

Two Factors Converged

Northeastern Brazil in 2014 and 2015 experienced two significant public health interventions that preceded the microcephaly outbreak. Both involved introducing potentially harmful substances into the bodies of pregnant women. Neither received serious investigation as a possible cause.

The first was an aggressive pesticide spraying campaign. Brazilian authorities had been combating dengue fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses by treating water supplies with larvicides. One chemical used was pyriproxyfen, a juvenile hormone analog that prevents mosquito larvae from developing into adults. Pyriproxyfen is an endocrine disruptor. It works by interfering with hormonal development—the same biological system that guides fetal growth. The regions with the heaviest larvicide use corresponded closely with the regions reporting the most microcephaly cases.

Local residents and some physicians pointed to the pesticide programs as a potential cause. A report by the Argentine organization Red Universitaria de Ambiente y Salud (REDUAS) noted the correlation between pyriproxyfen use and microcephaly clusters. The Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul suspended the use of pyriproxyfen in February 2016. These concerns were dismissed by international health authorities. The WHO stated that pyriproxyfen was “unlikely” to be causing the birth defects. No rigorous investigation was conducted.

The second factor has received even less attention. In October 2014, the Brazilian Ministry of Health’s Immunization Division issued a technical bulletin recommending TDaP vaccination for all pregnant women to combat a pertussis (whooping cough) outbreak. The bulletin contained a troubling provision: for women not previously vaccinated, it recommended administering up to three doses during pregnancy, each containing aluminum adjuvants.

Forrest Maready, in his 2018 book Crooked, documented this timeline. The October 2014 vaccination memo was issued nationwide. Ten months later—in August 2015—the first cases of microcephaly began appearing in the same region. The correlation is precise enough to warrant investigation. It has never received one.

PBS Frontline interviewed mothers of affected babies in Brazil. One eighteen-year-old mother, Ederlanha, reported receiving injections at her public health clinic every month of her pregnancy. She could not recall exactly what the shots were for. She also reported never experiencing any symptoms resembling a Zika infection. Her testimony suggests the vaccination program may have been implemented aggressively in the impoverished northeastern states—areas where poor women were less likely to have documentation of prior immunizations and more likely to receive the full multi-dose course.

Aluminum is a known neurotoxin. Vaccines have not been adequately safety-tested for use during pregnancy, and certainly not for multiple doses administered within a single pregnancy. A 2010 review in Human Reproduction Update noted that “the human teratogenic risks are undetermined for more than 90% of drug treatments approved in the USA during the past decades.” Conducting drug trials on pregnant women is considered unethical. The result is that drugs and vaccines are administered to pregnant women without adequate knowledge of their effects on fetal development.

Maready proposed a hypothesis: women who received multiple aluminum-containing injections during pregnancy while simultaneously contracting a Zika infection may have experienced a compounding effect. Zika does appear to cause some inflammation in fetal neural tissue—inflammation that a healthy immune system can typically manage. But an immune system responding to aluminum adjuvants may have mounted a neurotoxic response instead of a protective one. The unluckiest mothers faced both insults at once.

The October 2014 technical bulletin has since been removed from the Brazilian Ministry of Health’s website. Maready reports that he had to use archival tools to locate a copy. There is no longer any public reference to this vaccination program or its recommendations regarding pregnant women. The evidence has been quietly erased.

Polio and DDT: The Pattern Established

The attribution of paralytic illness to viruses while ignoring chemical causes has a long history. The most instructive precedent is polio.

Paralysis has been documented in medical literature for millennia, including in the writings of Hippocrates. Historical accounts attributed paralysis to various poisons—mercury, arsenic, lead. In 1824, the English physician Cooke wrote: “Among the exciting causes of the partial palsies we may reckon the poison of certain mineral substances, particularly of quicksilver, arsenic, and lead. The fumes of these metals or the receptance of them in solution into the stomach, have often caused paralysis.”

The condition we now call “polio” was first clinically described in 1789 and named in 1874. The original descriptions emphasized paralysis as the defining feature. By the twentieth century, outbreaks of infantile paralysis were occurring with increasing frequency in industrialized nations. Dr. Ralph Scobey, in his 1952 statement to the US House of Representatives Select Committee on chemicals in food, documented evidence linking these outbreaks to pesticide exposure.

Scobey noted that paralysis outbreaks frequently occurred in autumn, shortly after harvest—when pesticide residues on fruit would be at their highest. He cited a 1897 Australian epidemic that coincided with heavy use of phosphorus-based fertilizers. Organophosphates—a class of pesticides derived from nerve agent research—are proven neurotoxins. Phosphorus disrupts the nervous system. The definition of polio includes reference to effects on the central nervous system. The connection should have been obvious.

DDT was introduced in 1938 and promoted as a miracle pesticide. It was sprayed on crops, in homes, and directly on people of all ages. Advertisements proclaimed it “good for you.” DDT is an organochlorine—a class of chemicals that bioaccumulate in fatty tissues and persist in the environment for years. Rachel Carson documented the dangers of DDT and related pesticides in Silent Spring (1962), linking heavy pesticide spraying to wildlife deaths and ecosystem collapse.

DDT was finally banned in the United States in 1972, after a decade of industry resistance. It was not banned everywhere. In India, where DDT continues to be used for malaria control, cases of paralysis remain common. The Indian media regularly reports increases in Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) following oral polio vaccination campaigns. Health officials maintain that India is “polio-free” while acknowledging rising AFP cases. A 2012 article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics noted that “while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis.” The authors observed that NPAFP is “clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.”

The pattern is consistent. Paralysis occurs. A virus is blamed. Vaccination campaigns are launched. The underlying chemical exposures continue. When paralysis persists, it is reclassified under a new name—AFP, NPAFP, Acute Flaccid Myelitis—allowing authorities to claim victory over the original disease while the suffering continues under different labels.

Why Germs Get the Blame

Maready observed that Brazilian health officials showed “zero curiosity” about non-viral causes of the microcephaly outbreak. This absence of curiosity is not accidental. It reflects institutional incentives that make viral explanations preferable to chemical ones.

The attribution of disease to viruses protects powerful industries. Chemical manufacturers, pesticide producers, and pharmaceutical companies all benefit when health problems are blamed on microscopic pathogens rather than their products. As Lester and Parker note in What Really Makes You Ill?, “The attribution of blame for a large number of diseases to so-called ‘pathogenic microorganisms’ is clearly of immense benefit to these industries, as it deflects attention away from their hazardous activities and products.”

The original Latin word “virus” meant poison or noxious substance. The meaning has been so thoroughly transformed that it now refers exclusively to a type of particle, obscuring the older understanding that poisons—not germs—were the primary causes of disease. The germ theory, whatever its merits in specific cases, has become a convenient framework for attributing industrial damage to natural causes.

Regulatory systems reflect these incentives. Dr. Devra Davis, in The Secret History of the War on Cancer, observed that “it can take 3 weeks to approve a new chemical and 30 years to remove an old one.” DDT remained in use for decades after evidence of its dangers accumulated. The chemical industry launched public relations campaigns to counter Rachel Carson’s warnings, including personal attacks on her credibility. When evidence of harm becomes undeniable, the response is delay, obfuscation, and eventual quiet withdrawal—never acknowledgment of the damage caused.

The viral explanation also generates its own funding. A crisis attributed to a virus creates demand for vaccines, antiviral drugs, and research grants. The Zika emergency mobilized billions of dollars. Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that NIAID was pulling funds from malaria, influenza, and tuberculosis research to develop Zika vaccines. The agency funneled $125 million to Moderna Therapeutics for an mRNA Zika vaccine. Bill Gates invested in Oxitec, a company releasing genetically modified mosquitoes, and the Wellcome Trust. The infrastructure of pandemic response became an industry unto itself.

Kennedy documents the financial flows in The Real Anthony Fauci: “By fanning the flames of pandemic panic, Dr. Fauci, buttressed by his partner Bill Gates, requested an additional nearly $2 billion congressional appropriation to NIAID to develop a Zika vaccine. That money swelled his agency’s Zika budget to about $2 billion and enriched his pharmaceutical partners.” Crisis generates funding. Funding sustains institutions. Institutions require crises.

A chemical explanation, by contrast, offers no such benefits. It implicates industries with powerful lobbying operations. It suggests regulatory failure. It cannot be solved with a vaccine. It provides no opportunity for pharmaceutical profit. The incentive structure ensures that chemical causes will be the last explanation considered and the first dismissed.

When the Cure Becomes the Cause

The response to the Zika crisis exemplified a self-reinforcing pattern: blame mosquitoes, spray pesticides, create more of the conditions that caused the problem.

In the United States, authorities responded to Zika fears by aerial spraying of Naled over populated areas of Florida. Naled is an organophosphate insecticide. The EPA’s own fact sheet describes its effects: “Naled is moderately toxic if eaten, gets on the skin, or breathed in. In addition, naled is severely irritating if a person gets it in their eyes or on skin. It is considered corrosive and direct contact could lead to permanent damage.”

The documented effects of Naled exposure include diarrhea, tremors, difficulty walking, decreased activity, salivation, increased urination. In cases of severe poisoning: lightheadedness, slurred speech, muscle twitching, irregular heartbeat, convulsions, paralysis, coma, and death. Children show different symptoms than adults—muscle weakness, constricted pupils, seizures, lethargy, and coma were found more often in children.

The fact sheet notes that Naled, like other organophosphates, could lead to “tightness in the chest, wheezing, cough, increased saliva, runny nose, blurred vision, tearing, and headache” from inhalation. These are the chemicals that public health authorities sprayed from aircraft over residential neighborhoods to protect people from a virus that, in its entire documented history, had never caused serious harm.

Permethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide used for aircraft disinsection on flights to countries with Zika concerns, produces toxic effects that include neurotoxicity and reproductive problems. A scientific review noted that “the toxic effects of permethrin include neurotoxicity and reproductive effects”—the same categories of harm attributed to Zika infection. The chemicals deployed to combat the virus cause precisely the symptoms blamed on the virus.

Dr. Peter Hotez, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor, suggested bringing back DDT to combat Zika. The recommendation would have reintroduced a banned neurotoxin to address a problem potentially caused by neurotoxic chemicals. The circularity is complete: pesticides may cause birth defects; a virus is blamed; more pesticides are sprayed; the problem continues or worsens; the virus is blamed again.

This pattern extends beyond Zika. The WHO’s malaria control strategy relies heavily on pesticides—pyrethroid-treated bed nets and indoor residual spraying with organophosphates, carbamates, and even DDT. The Beyond Pesticides fact sheet on pyrethroids notes that “they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide.” People sleeping under treated nets and living in sprayed homes are continuously exposed to chemicals that disrupt the same biological systems the interventions are supposedly protecting.

What They Eventually Conceded

The Zika-microcephaly narrative did not survive contact with subsequent data. The virus spread. The birth defects did not follow.

By 2017, health officials were struggling to explain why their predictions had failed. Zika infections continued to occur throughout South and Central America, the Caribbean, and parts of the southern United States. Pregnant women were infected. The expected wave of microcephaly cases never materialized. Even in northeastern Brazil, the original epicenter, the birth defect rates returned to baseline levels despite continued Zika circulation.

The Brazilian Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine attempting to explain the discrepancy. Their conclusion: they had miscounted. The thousands of Zika infections diagnosed in 2015 and 2016 may have actually been other diseases—dengue or chikungunya. The massive diagnostic apparatus deployed during the emergency had apparently been producing false results at scale.

The admission created more problems than it solved. Dengue virus is not known to cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, which had also spiked during the outbreak. Chikungunya is thought to cause Guillain-Barré but not microcephaly. Neither alternative explanation could account for both conditions. As an NPR reporter pressed WHO spokesman Christopher Dye: “Now for this theory to hold true, we’re talking about thousands of Zika cases being mistaken for a totally different virus that’s not even closely related to Zika. Could this really happen?”

Dye’s discomfort was evident. The official position had collapsed into incoherence. The virus blamed for causing birth defects may not have been present in most of the affected pregnancies. The alternative viruses proposed could not explain the observed outcomes. The birth defects themselves had stopped occurring even as all three viruses continued to circulate.

Meanwhile, in Puerto Rico, the CDC offered the opposite explanation. Birth defects had not materialized there either, but the CDC attributed this to undercounting of Zika infections. The agency stopped reporting on Zika-affected pregnancies in Puerto Rico because it felt the local health department was missing cases. Brazil overcounted. Puerto Rico undercounted. Both explanations served to preserve the Zika hypothesis in the face of disconfirming evidence.

The WHO disbanded its emergency Zika response team—not because the threat had passed, officials emphasized, but because the response had been “mainstreamed.” By 2019, the United States recorded only fifteen Zika cases, none associated with microcephaly. Dr. Fauci, who had requested $2 billion to develop vaccines, explained to Congress that “it was never brought to full fruition because Zika disappeared.”

The Mayo Clinic reported in December 2020 that despite the massive expenditure, no functional Zika vaccine existed. The virus that had justified emergency funding, international panic, Olympic withdrawals, and aggressive pesticide campaigns had simply ceased to be a priority. No one asked what had actually caused the cluster of birth defects in northeastern Brazil. No investigation of pesticide exposure or vaccination programs was conducted. The mothers whose babies were born with microcephaly received no answers.

The Stakes of Misattribution

The Zika episode is not an isolated failure. It is one instance of a recurring pattern in which toxic chemical exposures are attributed to viruses, industrial interests are protected, and the interventions deployed to address the supposed viral threat compound the original harm.

The pattern has identifiable features. A cluster of illness appears. A virus is identified in some of the affected individuals. The virus is declared the cause, despite lacking any prior association with the condition. Alternative explanations involving chemical exposures are dismissed without investigation. Emergency funding is mobilized. Vaccines are developed or attempted. Pesticides are sprayed to combat the vector. The original problem may subside—as the chemical exposure decreases, or as vulnerable individuals are removed from the affected population—but this resolution is attributed to the intervention rather than to the cessation of the actual cause. The virus disappears from public attention. The industries whose products may have caused the damage face no accountability. The infrastructure for responding to the next crisis remains in place, ready to be activated.

Polio and DDT established the template. Zika and the Brazilian pesticide programs repeated it. The “zero curiosity” about non-viral causes is not a failure of scientific imagination. It is a feature of a system designed to protect certain interests while appearing to protect public health.

The consequences fall on those least able to protect themselves. The mothers in northeastern Brazil were poor. They lived in areas with inadequate water infrastructure, making them targets for larvicide programs. They attended public health clinics where vaccination recommendations were implemented aggressively. They lacked the resources to question official explanations or seek alternative care. Their babies bore the consequences of interventions undertaken in the name of protecting them.

The word “virus” originally meant poison. The transformation of its meaning—from a noxious substance to an invisible pathogen—reflects a broader transformation in how we understand disease. The germ theory directs attention toward microscopic entities and away from the chemical environment. It frames illness as an invasion to be repelled rather than as damage to be prevented. It generates industries devoted to vaccines and antimicrobials while the production of toxic chemicals continues largely unexamined.

The Zika crisis demonstrated how quickly the apparatus of pandemic response can be mobilized: billions of dollars in funding, emergency declarations, travel advisories, mass spraying campaigns, vaccine development programs. It also demonstrated how quickly that apparatus can be demobilized when the predicted catastrophe fails to materialize. The funding was spent. The companies were enriched. The questions were never answered.

What happened in Brazil in 2015 remains unexplained by official accounts. Thousands of babies were born with severe developmental abnormalities. Their mothers were told a virus was responsible—a virus that had never caused such harm before and has not caused it since. The pesticides sprayed in their water, the vaccines administered during their pregnancies, the poverty that made them vulnerable to both: none of these factors received serious investigation. The convenient virus absorbed the blame and then, conveniently, disappeared.

The infrastructure remains. The pattern is established. The next crisis will find the same institutions ready to identify a viral cause, mobilize emergency funding, and deploy interventions that may compound the harm they purport to address. The question is whether we will continue to accept viral explanations that serve industrial interests, or whether we will demand investigation of the chemical environment that increasingly surrounds us.

The mothers of Brazil deserve answers. So do the rest of us.

---

References

Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2021.

Lester, Dawn, and David Parker. What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. Independently published, 2019.

Maready, Forrest. Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained. Independently published, 2018.

World Health Organization. “Congenital anomalies” fact sheet. September 2016.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Facts about Microcephaly.” CDC website.

Winchester, P.D., Huskins, J., and Ying, J. “Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States.” Acta Paediatrica 98, no. 4 (2009): 664–69.

Van Gelder, M.M.H.J., et al. “Teratogenic mechanisms of medical drugs.” Human Reproduction Update 16, no. 4 (2010): 378–94.

National Pesticide Information Center. “Naled General Fact Sheet.” Oregon State University.

Vashisht, Neetu, and Jacob Puliyel. “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on.” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 9, no. 2 (2012): 114–17.

New Biology Clinic

For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com.

I appreciate you being here.

If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.