Only Half The Story: CDC Admits It Isn’t Reporting Healthy Babies Born To Zika-Infected Mothers

Image result for zika born babies

Plenty of Healthy Babies Born To Zika-Infected Mothers: Why Is The CDC Keeping Them Secret?

Knowledge is power, goes the old saying. An aphorism that was amply demonstrated by the Bush Administration in the run-up to selling the American people on the ill-advised debacle in Iraq.

If there was some information that didn’t fit the narrative the Administration was trying to present, it was omitted, downplayed, or dismissed.

That seems to be what is happening right now at the Centers for Disease Control as regards the Zika outbreak.

While the CDC is earnestly collecting and disseminating data on women who are pregnant and infected with the virus, and the number of children who are born with birth defects that are ostensibly linked to it, they are declining to report on the number of children who are born healthy to infected mothers.


In a blog post co-authored by CDC Director Tom Frieden and Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, it was reported that there were 1,595 women in the U.S. and its territories who are pregnant and infected with the Zika virus. They went on to report that of those women, 17 had given birth to babies who had “…birth defects related to Zika.”

But when asked the CDC what the numbers were for Zika-infected women who gave birth to healthy babies, they were told that the CDC doesn’t track those numbers.

“We are only reporting the number of pregnant women in the registry and [the] number of adverse outcomes,” said a CDC spokesman via an email to CNSNews. “Bottom line is we’re not reporting other outcomes because we are just beginning to understand the full spectrum of adverse outcomes associated with Zika infection in pregnancy.”


Isn’t part of investigating any emerging health threat tracking those affected by it as well as those who aren’t in the hopes of perhaps determining what is different about those two groups? I’m no epidemiologist, but that sounds like a pretty rudimentary place to start looking for answers on how to control what is being sold as a tremendously dangerous disease outbreak.

Amid this confused email it sounds like this person is trying to hedge bets by saying they just don’t know yet if some of those seemingly healthy babies actually have hidden birth defects due to Zika that are as yet unknown. However he or she went on to say:

“The decision was made to only report [the] number of pregnancies and adverse outcomes at this point.”

So they know there are healthy, unaffected babies, they know how many of them there are, they just don’t want to tell anyone how many there are.

Forgive me, but my Spidey-sense is tingling.

Take a moment for example to hearken all the way back to June of this year when a New England Journal of Medicine-published study showed that in Colombia over 12,000 Zika-infected women gave birth to healthy, unaffected babies.

Later, the report was amended to show that of the 12,000 pregnancies a total of 11 were confirmed to have resulted in microcephalic babies.

Here’s the thing though: correlation is not causation. Babies born in regions where pesticides are sprayed heavily who happen to have Zika infected mothers are not necessarily born that way due to the Zika.

At any rate, the CDC sure seems to be hiding something. Strange days, indeed, for an agency that purports to be trying to save us from this “scourge” with the best research possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *