96% Microcephaly in Brazil not Related to Zika Virus

Jose Fly

New member
your question was about what discarded meant in the paper.

Let's go with your conclusion, that the "other 462 cases" were discarded because they weren't actually microcephalic.

I just showed you that it means that those cases are just misdiagnosis of Microcephaly. Not that hard to understand.

Even if that's so, it still doesn't address the issue at hand. Remember, the original claim is that "270 cases have had microcephaly confirmation, and 6 with respect to the Zika virus" means 264 cases of confirmed microcephaly were tested for the virus and came back negative. The problem is, it doesn't say that, yet LifeNews and Breitbart reported it that way.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Right, and we still don't know.



No you didn't. Again, which comma are you referring to?

its clearly referring to Microcephaly cases. as for the comma I thought you were confused on the punctuation but that doesn't seem to be issue. It's clear what discarded means in this report you just don't admit you were wrong on the issue.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Let's go with your conclusion, that the "other 462 cases" were discarded because they weren't actually microcephalic.



Even if that's so, it still doesn't address the issue at hand. Remember, the original claim is that "270 cases have had microcephaly confirmation, and 6 with respect to the Zika virus" means 264 cases of confirmed microcephaly were tested for the virus and came back negative. The problem is, it doesn't say that, yet LifeNews and Breitbart reported it that way.

they merely repeated unofficial numbers from CNN and then put 1 and 1 together and came to the conclusion that zika is basically all hype. The official numbers are much worse for a zika-microcephaly connection.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
wiki basically says it doesn't have a universal definition.

That's a problem, isn't it? My son was just uniformly tiny at the start but otherwise healthy.

Babies are individuals. Babies with microcephaly could easily just be non-standard children or children with some challenges like many of us have. They are not monsters or rejects of nature. Many go on to be handsomely average and successful people. Others are handicapped but fill the lives of their loved ones with joy.

All deserve life and this panic over microcephaly is killing children and preventing even more from being conceived. Sad. :sigh:
 

jeffblue101

New member
IOW, they assumed their own conclusions and imposed them on the data, exactly as I said.
so media members are not allowed to think anymore in any matter that you, Jose fly, finds unacceptable even though their conclusion was right.


I just did, "http://combateaedes.saude.gov.br/noticias/244-ministerio-da-saude-investiga-3-448-casos-suspeitos-de-microcefalia" this report comes directly from the Brazilian government.
 

Jose Fly

New member
so media members are not allowed to think anymore in any matter that you, Jose fly, finds unacceptable

Or they could have just contacted the BMoH and asked.

even though their conclusion was right.

How?

I just did, "http://combateaedes.saude.gov.br/noticias/244-ministerio-da-saude-investiga-3-448-casos-suspeitos-de-microcefalia" this report comes directly from the Brazilian government.

What in that report supports your assertion?
 
Top