EBOLA 13 of 100 people DYING of Ebola NEVER HAD A FEVER! Fever not a "sure sign!!"

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Unfortunately, assuming that an Ebola victim cannot infect others until they have a fever is NOT ALWAYS TRUE, ACCORDING TO RESEARCH! Some very ill people NEVER GET A FEVER, some die of it without ever having a fever!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-1012-ebola-fever-20141012-story.html#page=1
Ebola research: Fever not a surefire sign of infection

For public health workers screening more than 1,000 air travelers who arrive each week in the United States from Ebola-stricken West Africa, one symptom above all others is supposed to signal danger: fever.

So long as an individual's temperature does not exceed 101.5 degrees and there are no visible symptoms of Ebola, health authorities say it should be assumed the person is not infectious.

Yet the largest study of the current outbreak found that in nearly 13% of "confirmed and probable" cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and elsewhere, those infected did not have fevers.

The study, sponsored by the World Health Organization and published online late last month by the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed data on 3,343 confirmed and 667 probable cases of Ebola.


Texas healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Noam N. Levey, Kurtis Lee
The finding that 87.1% of those infected exhibited fever — but 12.9% did not — illustrates the challenges confronting health authorities as they struggle to contain the epidemic.

U.S. health officials have repeatedly emphasized that fever is a reliable sign of infectiousness. As a defense against the spread of the virus to this country, the Obama administration has ordered that passengers arriving from West Africa at five U.S. airports be checked for fever.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, underlined the importance of fever in discussing the case of Thomas E. Duncan, a Liberian who traveled by air to Dallas and was diagnosed with Ebola. He died Wednesday.

Referring to those who had close contact with Duncan, Frieden said a week ago: "The only thing we need to ensure is that their temperature is monitored, and if they develop a fever, that they are immediately assessed, isolated and if found to be positive, then appropriately cared for."

lRelated
AFRICA
From Guinea to Dallas: Tracing the Ebola threat
SEE ALL RELATED
8

Frieden has said that about 150 air passengers per day — or 1,050 per week — enter the U.S. from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the countries at the heart of the outbreak.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is helping to shape the U.S. response to Ebola as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked by a CNN interviewer on Oct. 4 whether a person could be "contagious without having a fever."

Fauci replied that "the answer to that is no."

He continued: "You never say 100% but it's essentially 100%. … In biology nothing is 100%, but that's quite a reasonable conclusion to make."

Asked in the same interview about screening of air travelers, Fauci said, "Almost invariably, fever is the thing that signals the onset."

Reached for comment for this article, Fauci said by email that studies of Ebola outbreaks "usually underestimate by a few percentage points the actual percent of people" who have fever.

The official assumptions about the frequency of fever in Ebola patients have not been challenged publicly. But Dr. Paul D. Stolley, former chairman of the University of Maryland's Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, said the matter "requires further investigation."

Given the stakes, he said, the "absolute" assumption that Ebola can be spread only when an infected person displays fever should be reevaluated.

"It may be true," said Stolley, a member of the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies. "It just doesn't sound very plausible to me."

As of Friday, the current outbreak had killed 4,033 people, according to the CDC. There is no proven cure for Ebola.

cComments
@crisol There is no definite way to screen for Ebola except a blood test. This article says data from the current epidemic shows that 13% (ie...13 people out of 100 people) of infected and contagious people didn't have a temperature. The only method currently being used to screen travelers...
DOLLARFRAY
AT 1:50 AM OCTOBER 18, 2014
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS
27

The authors of the recent World Health Organization study said they analyzed "a detailed subset of data" on confirmed and probable cases, including information from forms completed by doctors and other healthcare workers in the affected countries, indicating whether a patient had a fever and at what temperature and whether the reading was taken by armpit, by mouth or rectally.

The study defined fever as 38 degrees Celsius — 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

"To create the fullest possible picture of the unfolding epidemic," the authors said, they collected additional information from "informal case reports" and other sources.

The researchers described imperfections in some of the data. In a footnote, they wrote that "in practice, healthcare workers at the district level often do not have a medical thermometer and simply ask whether the person's body temperature is more elevated than usual."

Yet the lead author, Dr. Christl Donnelly, a professor of statistical epidemiology at Imperial College London, stood by the findings on the prevalence of fever.

Asked by email whether the study found no fever in 12.9% of confirmed and probable cases, Donnelly replied: "Yes."

It seems that only measuring the temperature as a form of triage is insufficient. ... It seems that Ebola can present without fever especially in the first phase.
- Nick Zwinkels, Dutch physician who closed a Sierra Leone hospital after Ebola killed members of his staff
Three studies of previous outbreaks, cited in the same World Health Organization report, provide further grounds to question whether fever is a fail-safe signal.

Researchers studying an outbreak in Uganda in late 2000 and early 2001 reported that "the commonest symptom … was fever, which occurred in 85% of the cases."

Another study of that outbreak, focusing on 24 confirmed cases of Ebola, found fever in 88%.

The third study, which examined a 1995 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, found fever in 93% of 84 people who died and in 18 of 19 individuals who survived.

Asked Friday how many people infected in the current outbreak should be expected to display fever, a CDC spokeswoman, Sharon Hoskins, said "the vast majority" would, but added that it was "impossible to give an exact percentage."


For doctors and nurses fighting the epidemic in West Africa, the risk of encountering Ebola in the absence of fever is more than academic.

Dr. Nick Zwinkels, a Dutch physician, last month closed a hospital he had been running with a colleague in central Sierra Leone after five nursing aides contracted Ebola — possibly from unprotected contact with three patients who were not promptly diagnosed with the virus.

Four of the nursing aides died, as did all three of the patients belatedly found to have Ebola.

Interviewed by email, Zwinkels said that hospital staff members took the temperature of one of the doomed patients four times a day for three consecutive days, and the patient never showed a fever. The readings were taken by a digital thermometer placed in the armpit, he said.

Based on what his staff observed, Zwinkels wrote, "it seems that only measuring the temperature as a form of triage is insufficient."

He added: "It seems that Ebola can present without fever especially in the first phase."

Zwinkels said that without fever as a trustworthy marker, it is difficult for medical professionals to treat the many West Africans suffering from everyday maladies.


The clinic that Zwinkels operated for the Rotterdam-based Lion Heart Foundation was established to treat malaria patients but cared for a handful found to have Ebola, while trying to arrange their transfer to a more qualified facility.

If Ebola cannot be readily identified, Zwinkels wrote, "Ebola patients will be admitted in the normal ward and possibly contaminating health staff and caretakers. This is why a lot of hospitals in West Africa are closed. … Millions of people don't have any healthcare at the moment because hospitals treat Ebola only or are closed."

Zwinkels said he looked forward to returning to Sierra Leone and felt torn between raising awareness about the cases he saw and sowing panic.

"This outbreak is completely out of control, and the only way to stop [it] is to find every case, isolate them and trace their contacts," he wrote.

david.willman@latimes.com
 
Another thing not taken into consideration are the people who's body temps normally run low. My usual temp is around 96.7...sometimes up to 97. I know several people who share the same profile. So if I'm at 99.3...I'm not a "low grade" fever for me. I'm SICK!
 

zeker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Another thing not taken into consideration are the people who's body temps normally run low. My usual temp is around 96.7...sometimes up to 97. I know several people who share the same profile. So if I'm at 99.3...I'm not a "low grade" fever for me. I'm SICK!

and mine usually runs abit high. 99.4. I,m a gone-r
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Another thing not taken into consideration are the people who's body temps normally run low. My usual temp is around 96.7...sometimes up to 97. I know several people who share the same profile. So if I'm at 99.3...I'm not a "low grade" fever for me. I'm SICK!

I have the same problem, for which I have to continuously remind my doctor about.
 

4RIVERS

Veteran Member
The truth keeps leaking out while the CDC plays catch up to all of it. They'll put out another advisory now, stating what we've all known for a month... Not all Ebola patients have a fever as part of their symptoms.

This bunch is going to get a whole lot of people killed by their ineptness.
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
The CDC is now in full panic mode in my opinion. The two nurses getting infected from Duncan meant the CDC health protocols were defective and dangerous. The CDC belief that fever is a symptom of all, or most, Ebola infected is a fantasy.

Gang, this no fever means that the entire screening protocol, at airports etc, is INEFFECTIVE AND LEADS TO A DANGEROUS BELIEF WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHO HAS EBOLA.

This means that potentially thousands of Ebola infected will not be detected by temp scans, etc.

Yep, the Ebola 800 pound Gorilla just walked into the room and nobody noticed!
 

VesperSparrow

Goin' where the lonely go
Why all the discrepancies between the CDC and the WHO?
Just seems the CDC is so far under the blankets on the beds of the OBAMA administration they can't crawl their way out of the LIES.
They WANT chaos. That's just the only thing I can figure. They want people DEAD and they want the US in CHAOS.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
REMEMBER THIS ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT:

The standard operating procedure for government is to release news truth INCREMENTALLY.
Our government never releases the whole truth immediately. They RELEASE TRUTH INCREMENTALLY, ALWAYS.

It is human nature that once you hear "all they have to say" about any story that you will be inclined to IGNORE subsequent updates to that story.

YOU THINK LATER THAT "I ALREADY HEARD/ KNOW THAT STORY" and don't read updates and never know the horrifying truths that were INCREMENTALLY RELEASED AFTER THE PUBLIC is lulled back to sleep about the matter!!

IT IS BECAUSE HAD THE KNOWN, FULL TRUTH ABOUT THE MATTER BEEN RELEASED ALL AT ONCE THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTRAGED, TERRIFIED, PANIC, OR READY TO ROLL HEADS IN WASHINGTON, SO you never never get the whole story all at once when it is first released. Sometimes you NEVER hear the whole truth!!
 

Virtualco

Panic Early - Panic Often
Oh dear, I'm going to the Ft Lauderdale International Boat Show Friday checking out all the boats I'll never be able to afford. Guess I'd better not touch hand rails or shiny chrome boat parts. I'm so screwed...
 

celtic-cat

Senior Member
On Megyn Kelly's show last night, a doctor who got ebola while in Africa and then recovered tried to spike that statistic by saying that it was skewed by the fact that EVD patients who are nearing death STOP running a fever when their body is in process of shutting down. Yeah, I bought that.

He looked really odd, too, and had trouble communicating properly. He may just be a rather introverted person normally, though, as we never heard of him before he became involuntarily famous. His name was Dr. Rick Sacra.
 

DHR43

Since 2001
Assume a person has an immune system with even a little effectiveness, and they don't have a fever. It's not too hard to make a highly probable assertion that they aren't fighting off anything; not a cold, not the 'flu', not an infection, not a virus, not a germ, not a bacteria, not a body invader, nothing. No fever = nothing to fight.

Not The Big E, either.

How hard is it to get that they DON'T HAVE EBOLA or anything else, for that matter?

Ah, but, but, but the tests SAY they've got The Big E. The doctors SAY they're got The Big E. It MUST be true.

Nope. It's a con. A psy-op. A lie.
 

mockingbird

Contributing Member
Not to mix metaphors, but this gives a whole new to meaning to 'Typhoid Mary.' People who are asymptomatic put all of us at risk. There are always exceptions to the rules, including the rule that you must be running a high fever if you have ebola.
 

4RIVERS

Veteran Member
Really. That is what we are calling premeditated mass murder these days?

Yeah, for now. I don't necessarily believe all those involved with the CDC response are out to commit, "premeditated mass murder". I do think they've been overloaded with a bunch of dumber than shi* liberals who think they know better than the unenlightened people they are charged to protect.

Now, if you want to talk about Obama, that's a different story. He doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself.
 

Be Well

may all be well
On Megyn Kelly's show last night, a doctor who got ebola while in Africa and then recovered tried to spike that statistic by saying that it was skewed by the fact that EVD patients who are nearing death STOP running a fever when their body is in process of shutting down. Yeah, I bought that.

He looked really odd, too, and had trouble communicating properly. He may just be a rather introverted person normally, though, as we never heard of him before he became involuntarily famous. His name was Dr. Rick Sacra.

The perspnal story the Berta BL posted of a doctor in Nigeria who got ebola and survived described that she had a sore throat and other sick symptoms for a couple of days before fever.

Also there was an article from Sierra Leone or Liberia (wish I could remember) about people terribly sick and dying who never presented with fever. I think Sacra was told to lie and is also suffering from sequelae from ebola.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
I know this is an older thread now, but am asking members for help:

Since scientific "studies" often have long and complicated names that have NOTHING to do with what "laymen" would look for (such as the word, "fever"--it would say "febrile", instead, probably),

and since the article quoted in the study NEVER LISTS THE WHO LINK for the study, nor the New England Journal of Medicine link,

can any members (esp. those with knowhow of how it might be titled "medically") help me find the ORIGINAL LINK to this study?

Thanks in advance! :)

The study, sponsored by the World Health Organization and published online late last month by the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed data on 3,343 confirmed and 667 probable cases of Ebola.

Unfortunately, assuming that an Ebola victim cannot infect others until they have a fever is NOT ALWAYS TRUE, ACCORDING TO RESEARCH! Some very ill people NEVER GET A FEVER, some die of it without ever having a fever!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1
Ebola research: Fever not a surefire sign of infection

For public health workers screening more than 1,000 air travelers who arrive each week in the United States from Ebola-stricken West Africa, one symptom above all others is supposed to signal danger: fever.

So long as an individual's temperature does not exceed 101.5 degrees and there are no visible symptoms of Ebola, health authorities say it should be assumed the person is not infectious.

Yet the largest study of the current outbreak found that in nearly 13% of "confirmed and probable" cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and elsewhere, those infected did not have fevers.

The study, sponsored by the World Health Organization and published online late last month by the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed data on 3,343 confirmed and 667 probable cases of Ebola.


Texas healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Noam N. Levey, Kurtis Lee
The finding that 87.1% of those infected exhibited fever — but 12.9% did not — illustrates the challenges confronting health authorities as they struggle to contain the epidemic.

U.S. health officials have repeatedly emphasized that fever is a reliable sign of infectiousness. As a defense against the spread of the virus to this country, the Obama administration has ordered that passengers arriving from West Africa at five U.S. airports be checked for fever.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, underlined the importance of fever in discussing the case of Thomas E. Duncan, a Liberian who traveled by air to Dallas and was diagnosed with Ebola. He died Wednesday.

Referring to those who had close contact with Duncan, Frieden said a week ago: "The only thing we need to ensure is that their temperature is monitored, and if they develop a fever, that they are immediately assessed, isolated and if found to be positive, then appropriately cared for."

lRelated
AFRICA
From Guinea to Dallas: Tracing the Ebola threat
SEE ALL RELATED
8

Frieden has said that about 150 air passengers per day — or 1,050 per week — enter the U.S. from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the countries at the heart of the outbreak.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is helping to shape the U.S. response to Ebola as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked by a CNN interviewer on Oct. 4 whether a person could be "contagious without having a fever."

Fauci replied that "the answer to that is no."

He continued: "You never say 100% but it's essentially 100%. … In biology nothing is 100%, but that's quite a reasonable conclusion to make."

Asked in the same interview about screening of air travelers, Fauci said, "Almost invariably, fever is the thing that signals the onset."

Reached for comment for this article, Fauci said by email that studies of Ebola outbreaks "usually underestimate by a few percentage points the actual percent of people" who have fever.

The official assumptions about the frequency of fever in Ebola patients have not been challenged publicly. But Dr. Paul D. Stolley, former chairman of the University of Maryland's Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, said the matter "requires further investigation."

Given the stakes, he said, the "absolute" assumption that Ebola can be spread only when an infected person displays fever should be reevaluated.

"It may be true," said Stolley, a member of the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies. "It just doesn't sound very plausible to me."

As of Friday, the current outbreak had killed 4,033 people, according to the CDC. There is no proven cure for Ebola.

cComments
@crisol There is no definite way to screen for Ebola except a blood test. This article says data from the current epidemic shows that 13% (ie...13 people out of 100 people) of infected and contagious people didn't have a temperature. The only method currently being used to screen travelers...
DOLLARFRAY
AT 1:50 AM OCTOBER 18, 2014
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS
27

The authors of the recent World Health Organization study said they analyzed "a detailed subset of data" on confirmed and probable cases, including information from forms completed by doctors and other healthcare workers in the affected countries, indicating whether a patient had a fever and at what temperature and whether the reading was taken by armpit, by mouth or rectally.

The study defined fever as 38 degrees Celsius — 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

"To create the fullest possible picture of the unfolding epidemic," the authors said, they collected additional information from "informal case reports" and other sources.

The researchers described imperfections in some of the data. In a footnote, they wrote that "in practice, healthcare workers at the district level often do not have a medical thermometer and simply ask whether the person's body temperature is more elevated than usual."

Yet the lead author, Dr. Christl Donnelly, a professor of statistical epidemiology at Imperial College London, stood by the findings on the prevalence of fever.

Asked by email whether the study found no fever in 12.9% of confirmed and probable cases, Donnelly replied: "Yes."

It seems that only measuring the temperature as a form of triage is insufficient. ... It seems that Ebola can present without fever especially in the first phase.
- Nick Zwinkels, Dutch physician who closed a Sierra Leone hospital after Ebola killed members of his staff
Three studies of previous outbreaks, cited in the same World Health Organization report, provide further grounds to question whether fever is a fail-safe signal.

Researchers studying an outbreak in Uganda in late 2000 and early 2001 reported that "the commonest symptom … was fever, which occurred in 85% of the cases."

Another study of that outbreak, focusing on 24 confirmed cases of Ebola, found fever in 88%.

The third study, which examined a 1995 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, found fever in 93% of 84 people who died and in 18 of 19 individuals who survived.

Asked Friday how many people infected in the current outbreak should be expected to display fever, a CDC spokeswoman, Sharon Hoskins, said "the vast majority" would, but added that it was "impossible to give an exact percentage."


For doctors and nurses fighting the epidemic in West Africa, the risk of encountering Ebola in the absence of fever is more than academic.

Dr. Nick Zwinkels, a Dutch physician, last month closed a hospital he had been running with a colleague in central Sierra Leone after five nursing aides contracted Ebola — possibly from unprotected contact with three patients who were not promptly diagnosed with the virus.

Four of the nursing aides died, as did all three of the patients belatedly found to have Ebola.

Interviewed by email, Zwinkels said that hospital staff members took the temperature of one of the doomed patients four times a day for three consecutive days, and the patient never showed a fever. The readings were taken by a digital thermometer placed in the armpit, he said.

Based on what his staff observed, Zwinkels wrote, "it seems that only measuring the temperature as a form of triage is insufficient."

He added: "It seems that Ebola can present without fever especially in the first phase."

Zwinkels said that without fever as a trustworthy marker, it is difficult for medical professionals to treat the many West Africans suffering from everyday maladies.


The clinic that Zwinkels operated for the Rotterdam-based Lion Heart Foundation was established to treat malaria patients but cared for a handful found to have Ebola, while trying to arrange their transfer to a more qualified facility.

If Ebola cannot be readily identified, Zwinkels wrote, "Ebola patients will be admitted in the normal ward and possibly contaminating health staff and caretakers. This is why a lot of hospitals in West Africa are closed. … Millions of people don't have any healthcare at the moment because hospitals treat Ebola only or are closed."

Zwinkels said he looked forward to returning to Sierra Leone and felt torn between raising awareness about the cases he saw and sowing panic.

"This outbreak is completely out of control, and the only way to stop [it] is to find every case, isolate them and trace their contacts," he wrote.

david.willman@latimes.com
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
bumping again so it won't drop off & get lost---would really love any help anyone can give me finding the original medical journal or WHO source for this information (before they scrub THAT).

It would be NICE to have this, to send on to some news stations I know...
 

Sleeping Cobra

TB Fanatic
Thank you for more information about Ebola. Ebola is something you don't want to mes around with and get medical help immediately.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
I think this is it. Numbers came up in search, but I didn't read the entire article.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

I scanned it over (haven't read every word) and saw where it said that "87%" of patients DO present with fever--and I can see how you would extrapolate from that that 13% do NOT---

but I did not see where the more direct comments and conclusions he cites--that a patient does NOT have to spike a fever as evidence of infection with ebola---and could not find it.

Thanks for this study, and if anyone can find the study he's citing (like the original WHO studies---the article cites this one and MENTIONS three more---do please post them, so we can download / save them before THEY magically vanish into the ethernet as these types of articles and studies so often seem to do...
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Assume a person has an immune system with even a little effectiveness, and they don't have a fever. It's not too hard to make a highly probable assertion that they aren't fighting off anything; not a cold, not the 'flu', not an infection, not a virus, not a germ, not a bacteria, not a body invader, nothing. No fever = nothing to fight.

Not The Big E, either.

How hard is it to get that they DON'T HAVE EBOLA or anything else, for that matter?

Ah, but, but, but the tests SAY they've got The Big E. The doctors SAY they're got The Big E. It MUST be true.

Nope. It's a con. A psy-op. A lie.

DON'T assume. You have made some pretty broad assertions there.
TWO ER DOCTORS told ME to "go home", YOU DON't HAVE A FEVER, OR ELEVATED WHITE COUNT, we cannot find what is wrong with you, IT IS NOT YOUR APPENDIX LIKE YOU FEAR!
I said "PLEASE PALPATE MY APPENDIX!", and they only DID so (while rolling their eyes at each other) obviously to "humor a crazy old lady".
After they scraped me off the ceiling from that test, they said "Holy Shit, SHE DOES HAVE APPENDICITIS!

It was WAY PAST APPENDICITIS.
It was appendicitis that had finally turned to GANGRENE and was spreading Gangrene inside me to the rest of my intestines!
WITHOUT FEVER, WITHOUT ELEVATED WHITE CELL COUNT!

Damn good thing I am an ex-Army Medic and knew enough to demand that test, or I would be wearing a colostomy bag, If I had NOT JUST DIED, HOME ALONE!

The "diagnostic rules" are NOT CAST IN STONE, they are just guidelines for MOST cases.
 

Faroe

Un-spun
Assume a person has an immune system with even a little effectiveness, and they don't have a fever. It's not too hard to make a highly probable assertion that they aren't fighting off anything; not a cold, not the 'flu', not an infection, not a virus, not a germ, not a bacteria, not a body invader, nothing. No fever = nothing to fight.

Not The Big E, either.

How hard is it to get that they DON'T HAVE EBOLA or anything else, for that matter?

Ah, but, but, but the tests SAY they've got The Big E. The doctors SAY they're got The Big E. It MUST be true.

Nope. It's a con. A psy-op. A lie.

The study defines "fever" as 100.4 F. Several individuals on this board have mentioned (in other threads as well) that they have a lower normal body temp. and wouldn't register as having a fever. Doesn't mean they wouldn't be fighting off something and wouldn't be sick, so I don't see your logic in the above assertion.

I personaly believe there is a LOT of room for skepticism in this mess, particularly since the disease mimics so many other common illnesses, is quite variable in itself, and only a few labs seem to have the special test to determine Ebola. Do hospital labs have electron microscopes? Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to quickly identify an advanced case with just a blood sample - yet I've never heard of the diagnosis being made that way.

DHR43, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Are you positing that Ebola itself is a hoax - from its discovery in the 1970's on? (This would also negate Ebola as a possible bioweapon.) Do you see the epidemic in Africa as something else? I've seen some say it is a mass formaldehyde poisioning of the wells, others say it if from vaccines, and some seem to imply that this is mostly a media blitz. I am interested in these alternatives, but have not found much evidence to support them.

Just curious.
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
The "normal" human body temp is 98.6 farenheit. It has long been known that some people are "normally" a little hotter than that, and others are a little cooler than that. We are talking averages of the thousands of people pouring through airports etc. One of the reasons that fever checking is not going to cut in detecting Ebola infected people is a "fever" of 99 or 100 doesn't absolutely indicate somebody is sick.

Fever is "one" body response to infection, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY ONE, MUCH LESS A 100 PERCENT EVERY SINGLE TIME ONE. The CDC has FAILED in its Ebola response medical procedures and protocols. The CDC has FAILED in its slavish devotion to taking body temp as the SOLE means to detect Ebola infected people at the airports etc.

The idea that every single person who is infected with Ebola will show a fever, or that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH A FEVER CAN BE DETECTED AT AN AIRPORT IS YET AGAIN ANOTHER CDC DELUSION AND FANTASY.

Obama and the CDC are going to be the death of us all!
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city

LilRose8

Veteran Member
Another thing not taken into consideration are the people who's body temps normally run low. My usual temp is around 96.7...sometimes up to 97. I know several people who share the same profile. So if I'm at 99.3...I'm not a "low grade" fever for me. I'm SICK!
Most everyone over 45 will have a lower temp normally because our metabolic rate has slowed down some. I am a nurse and RARELY see an adult with a temp of 98.6. If one of my elder patients shows 98.6 or slightly more, I start wondering if there is an issue.

Which is my long winded way of getting to my point. SURELY the CDC knew this tidbit about the temps not being a reliable symptom....which means this was another red herring and ruse. What is their end game?
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Out of curiosity, I decided to take my temperature several times today.

When I was awake30 minutes in a cold house (I use wood, and didn't build a fire last night.), with cold hands - I had a temperature of 97.8 degrees.

Hours later, in a warm house with warm hands , my temperature was 98.4

After coming out of a too hot bath, my temperature was 100.4.

It would appear that the temperature of the surrounding area seems to change a bodies temperature a lot.
 

4RIVERS

Veteran Member
I scanned it over (haven't read every word) and saw where it said that "87%" of patients DO present with fever--and I can see how you would extrapolate from that that 13% do NOT---

but I did not see where the more direct comments and conclusions he cites--that a patient does NOT have to spike a fever as evidence of infection with ebola---and could not find it.

Thanks for this study, and if anyone can find the study he's citing (like the original WHO studies---the article cites this one and MENTIONS three more---do please post them, so we can download / save them before THEY magically vanish into the ethernet as these types of articles and studies so often seem to do...

Here's a link to the full pdf article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

The Authors/Contributors were many for this study, since it encompasses the first 9 months of the outbreak, but one Dr. mentioned in the LA Times article:

"Yet the lead author, Dr. Christl Donnelly, a professor of statistical epidemiology at Imperial College London, stood by the findings on the prevalence of fever.

Asked by email whether the study found no fever in 12.9% of confirmed and probable cases, Donnelly replied: "Yes.""


was simply stating the difference of the patients which presented with fever (87.1%) vs. 12.9% that didn't. She then confirmed by email that no fever was present in 12.9% of those diagnosed.

I'll almost positive this is what you're looking for, unless I'm missing the point, but check it out, especially Table 1, which is titled, Demographic Characteristics and Signs and Symptoms in Confirmed and Probable Ebola Case Patients with a Definitive Clinical Outcome in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.. It is a very thorough compilation of stats for Ebola.

Hope this is it. I haven't read this many technical papers since college!!
 

LucyT

Senior Member
Another thing not taken into consideration are the people who's body temps normally run low. My usual temp is around 96.7...sometimes up to 97. I know several people who share the same profile. So if I'm at 99.3...I'm not a "low grade" fever for me. I'm SICK!

Same here.
 

DHR43

Since 2001
DON'T assume. You have made some pretty broad assertions there.
TWO ER DOCTORS told ME to "go home", YOU DON't HAVE A FEVER, OR ELEVATED WHITE COUNT, we cannot find what is wrong with you, IT IS NOT YOUR APPENDIX LIKE YOU FEAR!
I said "PLEASE PALPATE MY APPENDIX!", and they only DID so (while rolling their eyes at each other) obviously to "humor a crazy old lady".
After they scraped me off the ceiling from that test, they said "Holy Shit, SHE DOES HAVE APPENDICITIS!

It was WAY PAST APPENDICITIS.
It was appendicitis that had finally turned to GANGRENE and was spreading Gangrene inside me to the rest of my intestines!
WITHOUT FEVER, WITHOUT ELEVATED WHITE CELL COUNT!

Damn good thing I am an ex-Army Medic and knew enough to demand that test, or I would be wearing a colostomy bag, If I had NOT JUST DIED, HOME ALONE!

The "diagnostic rules" are NOT CAST IN STONE, they are just guidelines for MOST cases.

Good for you with Appendicitis. That was close.

Our subject, however, is ebola. Or rather the almost complete lack of ebola. Ebola is supposed to cause a BIG fever. Lack of a BIG fever indicates a negligible immune system response by a person with even a sub-standard immune system.

My point was no fever = no ebola, or probably anything else, for that matter.
 

DHR43

Since 2001
The study defines "fever" as 100.4 F. Several individuals on this board have mentioned (in other threads as well) that they have a lower normal body temp. and wouldn't register as having a fever. Doesn't mean they wouldn't be fighting off something and wouldn't be sick, so I don't see your logic in the above assertion.

I personaly believe there is a LOT of room for skepticism in this mess, particularly since the disease mimics so many other common illnesses, is quite variable in itself, and only a few labs seem to have the special test to determine Ebola. Do hospital labs have electron microscopes? Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to quickly identify an advanced case with just a blood sample - yet I've never heard of the diagnosis being made that way.

DHR43, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Are you positing that Ebola itself is a hoax - from its discovery in the 1970's on? (This would also negate Ebola as a possible bioweapon.) Do you see the epidemic in Africa as something else? I've seen some say it is a mass formaldehyde poisioning of the wells, others say it if from vaccines, and some seem to imply that this is mostly a media blitz. I am interested in these alternatives, but have not found much evidence to support them.

Just curious.

Why do I say hoax?

You're onto something when you refer to 'the epidemic in Africa' and to 'poisonings of the wells' and to 'vaccines' and the 'mostly a media blitz'. This indicates you're at least thinking and getting close to connecting dots.

The quick answer as to why I say what I say is to research my recent (albeit) infrequent postings on the matter. That's the fastest way to learn, in this case. Read my support references, with care.

Good question, though.
 

4RIVERS

Veteran Member
Our subject, however, is ebola. Or rather the almost complete lack of ebola. Ebola is supposed to cause a BIG fever. Lack of a BIG fever indicates a negligible immune system response by a person with even a sub-standard immune system.

My point was no fever = no ebola, or probably anything else, for that matter.

From the most recent statistics coming from West Africa you would be incorrect, because only 88% of patients that died from Ebola presented fever as a symptom. Which means, 12% died without fever as a symptom. "No fever" doesn't mean "No Ebola"
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Good for you with Appendicitis. That was close.

Our subject, however, is ebola. Or rather the almost complete lack of ebola. Ebola is supposed to cause a BIG fever. Lack of a BIG fever indicates a negligible immune system response by a person with even a sub-standard immune system.

My point was no fever = no ebola, or probably anything else, for that matter.

Not necessarily. The doc's told me that i had a GREAT IMMUNE SYSTEM AND I'd been fighting off appendicitis, my immune system tamping down inflammation and infection, SO long it became CHRONIC appendicitis and no longer triggered fever. I figure I had it (appendicitis) thAT second time, complaining to dr's about it for roughly 18 months. (I also had it aS A KID at about age 10) .

Ebola likewise doesn't ALWAYS trigger a fever.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Here's a link to the full pdf article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

The Authors/Contributors were many for this study, since it encompasses the first 9 months of the outbreak, but one Dr. mentioned in the LA Times article:

"Yet the lead author, Dr. Christl Donnelly, a professor of statistical epidemiology at Imperial College London, stood by the findings on the prevalence of fever.

Asked by email whether the study found no fever in 12.9% of confirmed and probable cases, Donnelly replied: "Yes.""


was simply stating the difference of the patients which presented with fever (87.1%) vs. 12.9% that didn't. She then confirmed by email that no fever was present in 12.9% of those diagnosed.

I'll almost positive this is what you're looking for, unless I'm missing the point, but check it out, especially Table 1, which is titled, Demographic Characteristics and Signs and Symptoms in Confirmed and Probable Ebola Case Patients with a Definitive Clinical Outcome in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.. It is a very thorough compilation of stats for Ebola.

Hope this is it. I haven't read this many technical papers since college!!

Thanks so much!
 
Top