Greenwashing Zika: If You Tell Women Zika Isn't Caused by Mosquitoes, You're Putting Babies in Danger

Earlier this month, the CDC announced that it is now certain of the link between Zika and the birth defect microcephaly. But that did nothing to stem the tide of conspiracy theories. Every time I post about Zika or mosquitoes on Facebook, the greenwashers come out to explain to me what the "real science" says. Of course, they can never point to any actual real science. No peer-reviewed studies, no cellular evidence that Zika is harmless, no reason at all to believe that women and their babies will be safe if the epidemic comes to the U.S. 

I've been patient. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger defender of natural living and critical thinking than me. Just a few months ago, I got into a vitriolic debate with someone who insisted that we should drive mosquitoes to extinction. I understand that authorities lie, that Big Pharma really is evil, and that the advice our doctors give us is not always right. 

I also believe in science. Science tells us that "natural" approaches like breastfeeding are often better. But it also tells us that infectious diseases are real, and that nature is not an all-loving, all-forgiving mother who has our best interests at heart. Evolution is directionless and purposeless. It has no interest in protecting us, or anyone else. But greenwashers believe that natural is always better and that infectious diseases must always be due to modern medicine or technology. This approach usually ranges from harmless to annoying, but in the case of Zika, it endangers the lives of women and babies. 

Greenwashers: Stop telling women Zika is not real, does not cause microcephaly, or can be treated with natural remedies. Every time you spread this misinformation, you endanger babies. 

Zika and Mosquitoes: The Evidence is Overwhelming
I've already covered in great detail the research that points to the role of Zika in microcephaly. But briefly:

• Of nine women infected with Zika in the U.S., two opted to abort after ultrasounds showed severe brain abnormalities. Seven kept their babies. Two are still pregnant. Of the five who have given birth, one gave birth to a baby with severe brain abnormalities. This is a much higher rate of brain abnormalities than would be associated with any normal pregnancy, or with virtually any other risk factor (such as drinking or drug use) for birth defects. 
• In another study of women infected with Zika, 29% of women with the disease had babies with severe birth defects, regardless of the stage of pregnancy during which they were infected. Two babies died late in the pregnancy--a prenatal death rate exponentially higher than in normal pregnancies. All of the women lived in the same region, so had been exposed to similar levels of pesticides. Thus pesticide use could not possibly explain the differences, since these birth defects and deaths were not seen among women not exposed to Zika. 
• A study of cells in a petri dish showed that Zika directly targets brain cells. 
• Another study showed the Zika virus quite literally melting brain cells. 

Even if you believe this evidence does not prove the link between Zika and microcephaly--a position that's perfectly defensible given that good science is founded upon skepticism--it certainly establishes a clear correlation. Because no studies have shown that Zika doesn't cause microcephaly, because no research points to the role of any other culprit, and because the claim that pesticides cause Zika has been roundly debunked, the safe bet seems to be a belief that Zika is indeed the problem. 

Questions to Ask Zika Deniers: Consider the Worst-Case Scenario 
Still skeptical? Consider this: Zika is irreversible. It causes babies to suffer immeasurably, and we still don't know how bad their lives will be. Mothers and children in the US often have woefully inadequate health care, and pregnant women with Zika are suffering through the heartbreaking loss of babies just a few weeks before those babies were supposed to be born.

There's a hefty cost associated with being wrong in your Zika denialism. Do women and babies really deserve to be subjected to those risks just so self-styled skeptics can continue to lambaste mainstream science.

Put differently: What is the worst-case scenario associated with being wrong about Zika?
If Zika does not cause microcephaly and Zika believers are wrong, then I've exposed myself to more DEET than I otherwise would. That's certainly not ideal, but DEET has been around a long time and every credible source says it's safe. Indeed, I could find no study finding any negative outcomes associated with DEET use.. It's also not very fun to avoid outdoor events where mosquitoes might be present. The alternative, though, strikes me as much worse.

If Zika causes microcephaly and Zika deniers are wrong, they have told mothers to avoid life-saving precautions. The cost could be an epidemic of suffering and dying babies. To an individual woman, the cost could be the loss of her child--or a lifetime spent caring for a child who did not have to be born disabled. 

I implore Zika deniers to pause and think for a moment. Do you want to be the person who convinces a woman not to take life-saving precautions? Really? Are you sure?

If so, then I want answers to these questions:

1. Why do you believe that multiple peer-reviewed studies are not credible? Please point to specific errors in the methodology. 
2. What specific data did you use to arrive at the conclusion that Zika is not the cause of microcephaly?
3. If microcephaly is caused by something other than Zika, than why are only women with Zika--not those exposed to pesticides, not neighbors of women with Zika, not women with numerous other birth defect risk factors--experiencing such high rates of microcephaly? 

I wish Zika didn't cause microcephaly. But believing something doesn't make it true. I'd rather live in an unpleasant reality than a dreamy fantasy world if doing so allows me to protect my child. 

The Real Message Behind Zika Greenwashing: I'm Smarter Than You 
This morning, an acquaintance of mine--a lovely, kind, decent woman who wants to do the right thing--posted this story, which claims that the CDC "admits" that Zika doesn't cause microcephaly. The headline is misleading, since the CDC never admitted any such thing--even according to the alarmist text of the story itself.

What I found most troubling about the story is that it referred to people who believe in the Zika-microcephaly connection as "cognitively impaired." Never mind the discriminatory, ableist implications of this comment. This approach to argument should immediately discount anything else the author has to say. Real science does not rely on insults. It doesn't require you to accept a position for fear of being called stupid. Every story I've read from sources claiming Zika is not real uses similar tactics. They compensate for their lack of facts with vitriol and insult.

This is just more of the same old garbage pregnant women get all the time: an insistence that they are stupid.

When you tell a pregnant woman who has spent days researching Zika that she's wrong, you're conveying something loud and clear: you think you're smarter than her. That's insulting. It's part of the sexist culture of doubting women and discounting the wisdom of pregnant women. And when you do this without pointing to any actual research of your own, you are telling people they should blindly listen to authority rather than review actual research.

How is that good for anyone?

Just Another Opportunity to Judge and Shame Women? 
I'm going to post this to Facebook, and it will inevitably bring out the Zika deniers and greenwashers. The women are usually well-intentioned. In a lot of cases, they just haven't kept up with the research, and experience has taught them to be skeptical of authoritative claims by government bodies. I get that. I do. But again, when you correct someone who's citing research, you're insulting her intelligence.

The men are another story. Every time I post about Zika, some man comes on to aggressively tell me I'm wrong. One told me that pesticides don't work after I posted a long and emotional rant about the difficult decision to use pesticides to prevent mosquitoes in my yard. To what end? Certainly not to stop me from using pesticides. It was already too late. And certainly not in an attempt to educate me, since my request for further information went unanswered.

It's clear what the goal was there: to shame and judge another pregnant woman. Women as a group are constantly subjected to this hyper-reactive judgment. We're told what we wear causes us to get raped, that we provoke sexual harassment, that our very rational reactions to oppression are due to our hormone-induced hyper-emotionality.

Pregnant women get it even worse. We view them as public property. They're not even human. So who cares if we judge them and shame them? Who cares what effect that has on their psyches, their lives, their babies? Pregnant women are just empty vessels into which we can project whatever we want, consequences be damned.

Screw that. I'm wearing bug spray and protecting my baby. Other women can do what they want because it's not my business to judge. Come on, people. It's not that hard.