Gary Kohls

Attention to health journalists and other reporters who may have been promulgating what the CDC has been claiming about the alleged “certainty” that the Zika virus/microcephaly correlation has been solved in favor of causation. Nothing is further from the truth. Please read on to see that there is no “proof” proven by the recent New England Journal of Medicine article recently fast-tracked into publication by CDC-affiliated authors.

Would you do a favor to the real world, our easily duped congresspersons, our equally easily duped pro-vaccine physicians and all the vulnerable women and children who are at risk of being inoculated with yet another potentially toxic vaccine (that is certain to be fast-tracked because of the media- ordained Zika freak-out) by allowing the following truths to be discussed.

The following NEJM article is deeply flawed, and it was rushed into publication by CDC-affiliated “scientists”, most likely in order to rapidly settle the issue so the vaccine industry can get their hands on the $2 billion Zika money proposed by President Obama – and soon to be voted on in the US Congress). (The underlined phrases in the article are mine. I thought it was important to point out the many “squishy” words and terminology that was used in the article, thus casting doubt on the claims of scientific certainty.)

This article is being touted as absolute proof that the Zika virus was the cause of the Brazilian microcephaly outbreak (and not the never-considered DTaP vaccine, a teratogenic aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine with which all pregnant Brazilians were mandated to be inoculated starting in early 2015).

To suggest that this highly likely cause-and-effect relationship between the neurotoxic aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine is the root cause of the microcephaly outbreak would allow the truth of the matter to come to the surface. that we have been dealing with an iatrogenic ie, medical doctor or medical treatment-induced) disease – a totally unacceptable conclusion which the CDC, the AAP, the AMA, et al always try to cover up at all costs. What is likely the real truth about this media-mediated freak-out would, of course, keep the vaccine industry from getting the fast-tracked $2 billion appropriation as well. Conflicts of interest abound. (See the attached documents.)

The quote from the journal article’s last page (read it further below) reveals the author’s willful ignorance (is that worse than blatant ignorance?) concerning the serious dangers of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines (especially the DTaP) that are known to be teratogenic. Here is data from the package inserts and the PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) that shows that the vaccine industry has long known that some of their vaccines are teratogenic:

Vaccine company package inserts that list “encephalopathy” (brain disease) as a known adverse reaction

Merck M-M-R® II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live)

ADVERSE REACTIONS: Encephalitis; encephalopathy

Merck RECOMBIVAX HB® Hepatitis B Vaccine
ADVERSE REACTIONS: Encephalitis

Merck GARDASIL (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent)

ADVERSE REACTIONS (Postmarketing): Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

Merck VARIVAX Varicella (Chickenpox ) Live Virus Vaccine
ADVERSE REACTIONS, (Post-marketing): Encephalitis

Glaxo INFANRIX (DTaP) Pertussis Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience: Encephalopathy

Sanofi Pasteur PENTACEL DTaP IPV and HIB Combo Vaccine
Data from Clinical Studies, Serious Adverse Events: Encephalopathy

MedImmune FLUMIST Vaccine (Influenza Vaccine Live, Intranasal Spray)
Postmarketing Experience: Vaccine-associated encephalitis

Merck AFLURIA Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience: Encephalopathy

Novartis Vaccines AGRIFLU Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience: Encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis

GlaxoSmithKline FLUARIX Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience: Encephalomyelitis

And here is the pertinent quote from the article that shows that the authors have chosen to ignore the powerful and compelling vaccine connection that explains what really happened in Brazil. (Note that the CDC annually purchases 4 billion dollar’s worth of vaccines from the their partner vaccine makers and resells them to clinics). The NEJM authors write: “researchers have been unable to identify alternative hypotheses that could explain the increase in cases of microcephaly.” !!!

Please evaluate the following NEJM article and re-start a conversation that will expose the flawed science behind the assertions that the authors are making. Even network celebrity physicians and major media health journalists, have been duped into thinking that the “mystery” is solved, but the elephant is right there in the room. So in order to prevent another fast-tracked vaccine from reaching the market there needs to be some really great investigative journalism done.

Given the industry push to fund the vaccine corporations with the $2 billion tax dollars, (which would be an expensive error that would put more fetuses at risk when their mother’s doctors start injecting another dangerous vaccine on top of their aluminum-adjuvanted DTaP vaccine (plus the thiomerosal-containing flu shot). There might be a Pulitzer Prize out there for someone who gets the truth out.

Three articles that I have written on this issue are attached.

Thanks for any help you can offer concerning this vitally important issue. Gary

Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality

Sonja A. Rasmussen, M.D., Denise J. Jamieson, M.D., M.P.H., Margaret A. Honein, Ph.D., M.P.H., and Lyle R. Petersen, M.D., M.P.H.

April 13, 2016DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1604338

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1604338

SUMMARY

The Zika virus has spread rapidly in the Americas since its first identification in Brazil in early 2015. Prenatal Zika virus infection has been linked to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, most notably microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. To determine whether Zika virus infection during pregnancy causes these adverse outcomes, we evaluated available data using criteria that have been proposed for the assessment of potential teratogens. On the basis of this review, we conclude that a causal relationship exists between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. Evidence that was used to support this causal relationship included Zika virus infection at times during prenatal development that were consistent with the defects observed; a specific, rare phenotype involving microcephaly and associated brain anomalies in fetuses or infants with presumed or confirmed congenital Zika virus infection; and data that strongly support biologic plausibility, including the identification of Zika virus in the brain tissue of affected fetuses and infants. Given the recognition of this causal relationship, we need to intensify our efforts toward the prevention of adverse outcomes caused by congenital Zika virus infection. However, many questions that are critical to our prevention efforts remain, including the spectrum of defects caused by prenatal Zika virus infection, the degree of relative and absolute risks of adverse outcomes among fetuses whose mothers were infected at different times during pregnancy, and factors that might affect a woman’s risk of adverse pregnancy or birth outcomes. Addressing these questions will improve our ability to reduce the burden of the effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy.

POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZIKA VIRUS INFECTION AND BIRTH DEFECTS

Since the identification of the Zika virus in Brazil in early 2015, the virus has spread rapidly throughout the Americas (www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/active-countries.html). An increase in the number of infants with microcephaly in Brazil was first noted in September 2015, after the recognition of Zika virus transmission in the country earlier in the year1; this was followed by the recognition of a similar increase in French Polynesia after an outbreak there in 2013 and 2014.2 Despite accumulating evidence that supports the link between Zika virus infection and microcephaly, most experts have taken care not to state that Zika virus infection is causally related to these adverse outcomes.3This cautious approach toward ascribing Zika virus as a cause of birth defects is not surprising, given that the last time an infectious pathogen (rubella virus) caused an epidemic of congenital defects was more than 50 years ago, no flavivirus has ever been shown definitively to cause birth defects in humans,4 and no reports of adverse pregnancy or birth outcomes were noted during previous outbreaks of Zika virus disease in the Pacific Islands.5,6

On the basis of the available evidence, the public health response to the outbreak of Zika virus disease has moved forward, with the distribution of health messages about the importance of mosquito-bite prevention, recommendations by public health authorities in some of the most severely affected countries to delay pregnancy, and advisories that pregnant women avoid travel to areas with active Zika virus transmission.7 However, communications regarding Zika virus have been challenging: a recent survey showed low levels of knowledge and concern about Zika virus in the United States.8 The recognition of Zika virus as a cause of microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies would allow for more direct communication, which might lead to improved understanding of and adherence to public health recommendations. Therefore, a review of the evidence linking Zika virus infection and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes is needed.

As is typically the case in epidemiology and medicine, no “smoking gun” (a single definitive piece of evidence that confirms Zika virus as a cause of congenital defects) should have been anticipated. Instead, the determination of a causal relationship would be expected to emerge from various lines of evidence, each of which suggests, but does not on its own prove, that prenatal Zika virus infection can cause adverse outcomes. Two approaches have been used to identify potential teratogens (exposures to a mother during pregnancy that have a harmful effect on her embryo or fetus)9: first, the identification of a combination of a rare exposure and a rare defect (sometimes referred to as the astute clinician approach),10 and second, the use of epidemiologic data to confirm an association. Many teratogens were first identified by means of the rare exposure–rare defect approach, including rubella virus, which was identified after an ophthalmologist noted a characteristic form of cataracts in infants whose mothers had rubella during pregnancy,11 and heavy alcohol use, which was identified as a teratogen after the recognition of a characteristic pattern of malformations that became known as the fetal alcohol syndrome.12 In contrast, some teratogens have been identified on the basis of epidemiologic studies (e.g., valproic acid was identified as a teratogen after a case–control study showed an odds ratio of 20 for the association of spina bifida with use of this drug during the first trimester of pregnancy).13

SHEPARD’S CRITERIA

In 1994, Thomas Shepard, a pioneer in the field of teratology, proposed a set of seven criteria for “proof” of human teratogenicity (Table 1TABLE 1

Shepard’s Criteria for Proof of Teratogenicity in Humans as Applied to the Relationship between Zika Virus Infection and Microcephaly and Other Brain Anomalies.) that incorporated both approaches.9These criteria were an amalgamation of criteria developed by other teratologists and guided by methods that were used to identify previous teratogens. These criteria have been used to guide discussions about causation in teratology-related litigation30 and to assess other potential teratogens.10 We used Shepard’s criteria9 as a framework to evaluate whether the currently available evidence supports the hypothesis that prenatal Zika virus infection is a cause of microcephaly and other brain anomalies (Table 1).

According to these criteria, causality is established when either criteria 1, 3, and 4 (rare exposure–rare defect approach) or criteria 1, 2, and 3 (epidemiologic approach) are fulfilled. The first criterion states that a proven exposure to an agent must occur at a critical time during prenatal development. The severe microcephaly and other brain anomalies that have been observed in many infants are consistent with an infection occurring in the first or early second trimester of pregnancy. Several case reports and studies have shown that women who had fetuses or infants with congenital brain anomalies that were believed, on the basis of the mother’s symptoms or laboratory confirmation, to be due to Zika virus infection were infected in the first or early second trimester of pregnancy, as determined either according to the timing of the symptoms or according to the timing of travel to an area where Zika virus is endemic.14-20 An analysis of the timing of laboratory-confirmed Zika virus transmission in certain states in Brazil and of the increase in the cases of microcephaly identified the first trimester as the critical time period for infection.1 Zika virus infections that occur later in pregnancy have been associated with poor intrauterine growth, fetal death, or in some pregnancies, defects on prenatal imaging that have not yet been confirmed postnatally because the pregnancies are ongoing.14 We conclude that Shepard’s first criterion has been met.

Shepard’s second criterion requires that two epidemiologic studies of high quality support the association. Although ecologic data do not necessarily qualify as an epidemiologic study, data from Brazil regarding the temporal and geographic association between Zika virus infection and the later appearance of infants with congenital microcephaly are compelling.1,31,32 Two epidemiologic studies also provide support.2,14 In a study conducted during the outbreak in Brazil, 88 pregnant women who had had an onset of rash in the previous 5 days were tested for Zika virus RNA. Among the 72 women who had positive tests, 42 underwent prenatal ultrasonography, and fetal abnormalities were observed in 12 (29%); none of the 16 women with negative tests had fetal abnormalities. The abnormalities that were observed on ultrasonography varied widely, and some findings lacked postnatal confirmation because the pregnancies were ongoing.14

A retrospective analysis after the 2013–2014 outbreak of Zika virus disease in French Polynesia identified eight cases of microcephaly; the authors used serologic and statistical data and mathematical modeling to estimate that 1% of the fetuses and neonates who were born to mothers who had been infected with Zika virus in the first trimester had microcephaly2 — a prevalence that was approximately 50 times as high as the estimated baseline prevalence. However, this estimate was based on small numbers, confidence intervals were wide, and the risk of other adverse outcomes (e.g., other brain anomalies) was not assessed.2Although these studies provide important evidence in support of a causal relationship between Zika virus and microcephaly and other brain anomalies, both have limitations as noted by their authors, such as a lack of control for confounding factors and relatively small numbers of cases, and therefore they do not meet the stringent criteria set by Shepard. Thus, we conclude that Shepard’s second criterion has not yet been satisfied.

The third criterion, careful delineation of clinical cases with the finding of a specific defect or syndrome, appears to be met. Previous teratogens have caused specific birth defects or syndromes rather than a broad range of birth defects.33 Many fetuses and infants with presumed congenital Zika virus infection have had a typical pattern, including severe microcephaly, intracranial calcifications, and other brain anomalies, sometimes accompanied by eye findings, redundant scalp skin, arthrogryposis, and clubfoot15,20-23; such findings have led authors to use the term “congenital Zika syndrome.”22,34,35 On the basis of clinical details from a limited number of cases, some infants with presumed congenital Zika virus infection have had features that were consistent with fetal brain disruption sequence,24 a phenotype involving the brain that is characterized by severe microcephaly, overlapping cranial sutures, prominent occipital bone, redundant scalp skin, and considerable neurologic impairment.20,22 For example, 11 of 35 infants (31%) with microcephaly whose cases were reported to a Brazil Ministry of Health registry had excessive and redundant scalp skin,20 a finding that is not typically seen in other forms of microcephaly.36These findings suggest an interruption of cerebral growth, but not in that of the scalp skin, after an injury (e.g., viral infection, hyperthermia, or vascular disruption) that occurred after the initial formation of brain structures, followed by partial collapse of the skull. The fetal brain disruption sequence is rare; only 20 cases were identified in a literature review in 2001.24

Shepard’s fourth criterion refers to the association between a rare exposure and a rare defect; we conclude that this criterion also has been met. The concept behind this criterion is that a rare defect occurring after a rare exposure during pregnancy implies causation because of the unlikelihood of the two rare events occurring together.10 Microcephaly is a rare defect that is estimated to occur in 6 infants per 10,000 live born infants in the United States.25 Zika virus would not be a rare exposure among women living in Brazil during the Zika virus outbreak. However, reports of adverse birth outcomes among travelers who spent only a limited time period in an area where there is active Zika virus transmission are consistent with Zika virus being a rare exposure.16,18,19

A recent report is illustrative: a pregnant woman traveled for 7 days to Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize during her 11th week of gestation and had a positive test for Zika virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies 4 weeks later. On fetal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging performed at 19 to 20 weeks of gestation, severe brain anomalies were diagnosed in the fetus, and the pregnancy was terminated at 21 weeks of gestation. Microcephaly was not present at the time of pregnancy termination, but the head circumference had decreased from the 47th percentile at 16 weeks of gestation to the 24th percentile at 20 weeks of gestation (a finding that is consistent with the timing of diminishing head sizes in previous cases),14 which suggests that microcephaly would have developed in the fetus had the pregnancy continued.16 In this woman, Zika virus would be considered a rare exposure, and her fetus had a rare outcome.

The last three criteria are helpful if they are present, but they are not considered to be essential. The fifth criterion, the need for an animal model that shows teratogenicity, has not been met. Although animal models have shown that Zika virus is neurotropic,27,28 no studies that tested for teratogenicity in an animal model have been published, although studies are under way. The sixth criterion, that the association should make biologic sense, is clearly met here. Other viral infections have had similar effects (microcephaly and eye problems).24,26 In addition, pathologic evidence supports this association: Zika virus RNA has been seen in damaged mononuclear cells (presumably glial cells and neurons) in the brains of newborns with microcephaly,17 and the virus appears to be neurotropic.17,19 Live Zika virus has been cultured from the brain of a fetus with severe brain anomalies after maternal infection at 11 weeks of gestation.16 Furthermore, Zika virus efficiently infects neural progenitor cells and produces cell death and abnormal growth, thus providing a possible mechanism for microcephaly.29 The seventh criterion, proof in an experimental system that the agent acts in an unaltered state, is aimed at medications or chemical exposures and does not apply to infectious agents. Thus, given Shepard’s criteria as a framework, criteria 1, 3, and 4 have been satisfied — evidence that is considered sufficient to identify an agent as a teratogen.

OTHER CRITERIA

Other criteria can also be used to assess this relationship. Koch’s postulates, developed in the late 19th century, are often cited as necessary to show causation in infectious disease; however, many authors have noted the need for Koch’s postulates to be updated to accommodate modern technologies.37-39 The Bradford Hill criteria40 provide another framework to assess causation; Frank et al. recently used these criteria to assess the relationship between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and concluded that additional information was needed to assume that the relationship was causal.41 However, several key pieces of evidence have become available since they performed their analysis, including two epidemiologic studies,2,14 a study of the effects of Zika virus on neural progenitor cells,29 and a case report of a fetus with brain anomalies and decreasing head size from whose brain live Zika virus was isolated.16 On the basis of our update of their analysis, which incorporates newly available evidence (Table 2TABLE 2

Bradford Hill Criteria for Evidence of Causation as Applied to the Relationship between Zika Virus Infection and Microcephaly and Other Brain Anomalies), nearly all the relevant criteria have been met, with the exception of the presence of experimental evidence. However, Hill emphasizes that meeting all nine criteria is not necessary40; instead, the criteria should serve as a framework to assess when the most likely interpretation of a relationship is causation.

ASSESSMENT OF CRITERIA

Thus, on the basis of a review of the available evidence, using both criteria that are specific for the evaluation of potential teratogens9 and the Bradford Hill criteria40 as frameworks, we suggest that sufficient evidence has accumulated to infer a causal relationship between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other severe brain anomalies. Also supportive of a causal relationship is the absence of an alternative explanation; despite the extensive consideration of possible causes, researchers have been unable to identify alternative hypotheses that could explain the increase in cases of microcephaly that were observed first in Brazil and then retrospectively in French Polynesia, and now in preliminary reports that are being investigated in Colombia.1,2,42

Moving from a hypothesis that Zika virus is linked to certain adverse outcomes to a statement that Zika virus is a cause of certain adverse outcomes allows for direct communications regarding risk, both in clinical care settings and in public health guidance, and an intensified focus on prevention efforts, such as the implementation of vector control, the identification of improved diagnostic methods, and the development of a Zika virus vaccine.44 In addition, after recognizing a causal relationship between Zika virus infection and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, we can focus research efforts on other critical issues: First, understanding the full spectrum of defects caused by congenital Zika virus infection; if Zika virus is similar to other teratogens, an expansion of the phenotype would be expected (e.g., with the congenital rubella syndrome, the phenotype was expanded from cataracts to include other findings such as hearing loss, congenital heart defects, and microcephaly).11 Second, quantifying the relative and absolute risks among infants who are born to women who were infected at different times during pregnancy. Third, identifying factors that modify the risk of an adverse pregnancy or birth outcome (e.g., coinfection with another virus, preexisting immune response to another flavivirus, genetic background of the mother or fetus, and severity of infection). Addressing these issues will improve our efforts to minimize the burden of the effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy.

-###-

Dr Kohls now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. The last three years of Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn.