EBOLA Ebola: What We Have Seen So Far May Be Just the Beginning

MC2006

Veteran Member
http://prepforshtf.com/ebola-seen-far-may-just-beginning/#.VFlu84dw3Wo

What do Charles Darwin, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein, Lord Kelvin and Fred Hoyle all have in common? They all had committed colossal errors in their scientific studies; they all believed something to be true when in fact it was not.

“US scientists state uncertainties loom about Ebola’s transmission, other key facts about the disease need further research before any definitive answers can be found” (Reuters, 2014).

The government insists we all listen to the science when it comes to Ebola, well as we all know science has been wrong before, many times before.

“Some of the things that experts are worried about include Ebola virus penetration through “intact skin”. Medical experts know that a person can become infected if the bodily fluid of an infected person enters through a break in their skin.

What does it mean if the Ebola virus can penetrate intact skin however, in other words a person may not need to have a break in the skin for the virus to enter the body through the skin.”

Can simple contact with exposed skin allow the virus to enter the body? No one really knows, yet.

“The possibility of this happening has not been definitively ruled out, according to hemorrhagic-fever expert Thomas Ksiarek of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), who co-led a session on Ebola’s transmission routes” (Reuters, 2014).

Other experts question whether the Ebola virus can be spread by those who may not be showing symptoms. Public health officials in the United States and elsewhere insist it cannot. However, according to Dr. Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah the possibility of “subclinical transmissions” remains very much an open question.

Experts also wonder whether the “infectious dose” is dependent upon how it enters the body. Additionally, the period between exposure and symptoms appearing is called into question as well. Some believe it may have to do with what fluids a person may have contact with from an infected person. For example, is the incubation period longer if someone contacts the saliva versus the blood of an infected person?

According to Dr. C.J. Peters, who is a field virologist at UTMB estimates that “5 percent of people” can show symptoms, and be in fact infected, and ultimately pass the virus along after an incubation period of three weeks has passed.”

Another question is at what temperature patients start “shedding” the virus. This is not definitively known, said Dr. Michael Hodgson, chief medical officer of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most believe it is when the body temperature of an infected person reaches 100.4ᵒ F (38ᵒ C). When a patient sheds, the virus is when others can become infected if they are exposed to bodily fluids.

Another question and possibly huge problem is whether the virus can survive in sewers. This question is posed by Paul Lemieux of the National Homeland Security Research Center at the Environmental Protection Agency. “Can rats pick up the virus and carry it, and ultimately spread it to humans and other animals” the question remains unanswered.

There are questions, and some claim to have the answers. However, when it comes to life and death the answers have to be correct, and some fear they may not be.

Much of what has been stated above is opinion, based on observation and certain studies, but it is well worth your time to contemplate what you have just read. What we all know is that to get the virus you have to make contact with it, so your first line of defense as stated in previous articles, is seclusion, as much as possible anyway.

The facts are if you do contract the virus you cannot treat yourself or treat a family member so your focus has to be on not contracting the virus in the first place. The reality is that you will not likely contract the virus, but the fear Ebola has instilled in your community and country is real and it can cause you and everyone else problems. Communities will react when and if someone in the community is infected with the virus and this will cause you problems that you must prepare for now.

The chances of you contracting the virus is extremely low to the point it is almost impossible but take nothing for granted and know who, what, when and where. Once again, seclusion is your best defense.

The problem with science and diseases is that they both change they both evolve over time. The Ebola virus may or may not adapt, mutate if you will, but then again it might very well mutate into something even more deadly, all speculation at this point of course, but everyone has to assume the worst case so they can at least try to prepare.

The problem is that no one knows what they do not know, and the fear is that one-day soon medical experts may say, “oops we got it all wrong” and back to the drawing board. A game changer for sure, but it has happened in the past with various other diseases and other scientific certainties that turned out not to be so certain after all.
 
"...uncertainties loom about Ebola’s transmission..."


We may not have long to see the results of removing those uncertainties - and might not like the results.
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
Americans are very much a sound bite and instant gratification society.

The Black Death lasted for FOUR years, before eventually petering out. It came in several additional waves until the mid 1600 period. We are about 9 months into the first year of Ebola in Africa. We are about one month into Ebola in the USA. Be patient and adopt a long term view.

Ebola is going to play out in Africa over the next THREE TO FIVE YEARS. It will play out in the USA in the next 1 to 3 year period.

Africa is road kill at this point.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Going here and the main thread.

Doc Grouch is an experienced Appalachian ER doc.

2048px-ebola_virus_virion
Doc Grouch sends:

So I have been trolling through the comments on the Ebola posts; these are the most common questions/concerns/issues:

1.Is Ebola going to end the world? Or is it a paper tiger, that will fall when faced with 'Murrican Medicine?
2. Is Ebola a fraud? (various definitions here)
3. Can Ebola go airborne?

1. Short answer:

No One Knows.

Let me repeat:

No One Knows.

No One.

And absent the gift of prophesy (which the Good Lord knows I would misuse on the next really big Powerball Jackpot), no one can tell you. Common sense dictates that it be treated like the weapon of mass destruction that has been for the last 40 years, until convincing and repeated evidence demonstrates otherwise. The mortality rate in Africa is equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded; the best of Western Medicine might take that to 1 out of 6; neither is a game I am much interesting in playing.

Longer answer:

Certainly an infection like this could prove catastrophic. West Africa, already notoriously corrupt and inefficient, has been hit so hard even the WHO openly acknowledges that the infrastructure is crumbling and their raw data is bogus. Liberia, in particular, is just about done as a country. Computer models project hundreds of thousands of cases (if not millions) in Africa, and as many as 130 cases here by January. (Note well that these computer projections are at the same level of evidence used to produce global warming predictions; please take with whatever size grain of salt you deem appropriate.)

However, no virus has a true 100% mortality rate. Some survive, always. The reasons are probably genetic in origin. A good example is the CCR5 mutation in HIV. CCR5 is the cell surface receptor the HIV virus uses to bind to and enter (later to destroy) immune cells; some small fraction of Europeans have a mutation that prevents entry of HIV into those cells, rendering them immune to HIV. We don't know of any specific mutations like that in Ebola, but we do know that some infected individuals do not show any symptoms with Ebola. We do not yet understand this, or what fraction of the infected are asymptomatic; in this case it would be very interesting to test all the close contacts of the known Ebola patients in America.

There are also some signals that First World medicine should dramatically reduce the mortality of Ebola; in fact, it would be hard to imagine how we could not. In the most recent NEJM article, a group of experienced physicians in Sierra Leone took on about 100 patients; the outcomes were miserable (such as, 94% mortality in patients over 45). However, I have been in contact with the author on a few technical points; in passing he notes that there was a great deal of trouble with "aggressive fluid therapy", which is the most important part of early Ebola treatment. By "problems" he meant: patients pulling out IVs, running out of LR or NS, no IV pumps, and no nurses (or anyone, really) to place and monitor IVs. None of these should apply in the US.

The tradeoff for First World medicine is First World cost. Caring for one of these patients is catastrophically expensive. Even in a major academic center, more than 1 of these patients will put that hospital in financial trouble; for smaller hospitals, even 1 may do it. Bellevue in NYC has had to transfer out its ICU patients, as they do not have the manpower to take care of a single Ebola patient and still cover an ICU. So the above mentioned projections of 130 patients (if accurate) would seriously strap the health care system. In addition, contacts I have in Texas indicate that Texas Presbyterian (a near-900 bed facility) is essentially empty; as of 2 weeks ago, the inpatient census was in the single digits; that hospital that has been sacrificed on the altar of Ebola. It almost certainly will go bankrupt; this is before the inevitable lawsuits alleging inadequate care (which included intubation and dialysis) for a noncitizen of this country. Best believe that hospital CEOs and CFOs are watching this quite closely.

(Allow me to be explicit: the fact that this hospital intubated and dialyzed this guy means they gave him the full court press--and did so to a non-citizen, without consideration of cost or personal risk. Just because they sucked at PPE does not mean they gave up on him, or gave him improper care.)

The other thing to note, is that we have done precisely Jack and Squat to contain the disease at its source. Source control is a fundamental concept in the management of any infection, and without it we will never truly be rid of Ebola. The Libs have told a partial truth in their insistence on this. Their additional argument that we must keep our borders open to not discourage aid workers is ludicrous on its face; making an exception for such workers is trivial, and with that should come a 21 day quarantine after they return.

So, while I do not think this will be a true extinction level event, the virus clearly understands Murphy's law much better than the political animals in charge; it does deserve some respect.

2. "Fraud" has had various definitions; some hold that the virus is a fake and no one is really sick, others hold this is some sort of false flag used to obtain further .gov advances into our freedom.

The disease is not a fraud, it is real, and thousands have died from it over the course of the last 40 years or so that we have known about it.

As to further power-groping, no one should be surprised if .gov does that. Haters gonna hate, Statists gonna State. And if they did not have Ebola, soon we would hear breathless reports of the Sun Rising In The East!, and then organized protests by the Society For The Installation Of A Solar Dimming Control, with the accompanying lib/enviro wackos shouting for more of our money to help them take more of our freedom.

3. Short answer:

Ebola has already been shown to go airborne, but the papers in question have flaws. Neither paper applies in nature; both might apply in weaponization of the virus.

Longer answer:

The dominant mode of transmission of Ebola is via contact with an infected person, or with something that person has soiled. It is probably spread by droplet, and may be spread airborne, but these are not the dominant modes.

Changing the dominant mode of transmission for a virus is genetically very, very difficult. It would be a similar feat if humans changed their dominant mode of mobility from walking to flying. Tricksy, my precious, very tricksy.

Humans fly all the time, however -- we get in a plane and off we go. This does not imply that we have sprouted wings and fly south for the winter, however. Ebola can fly as well -- put it in a mister and spray it on someone. This does not change its dominant mode of transmission, but the person who takes a face full of mist will get sick.

Dealing with the dominant mode of transmission for Ebola is wickedly difficult. Getting the PPE on and off correctly is hard. Watch Dr. Gupta put on and take off the stuff; folks, he's a honest to goodness brain surgeon, who has done this thousands of times. And he screws it up. The moral of the story is, deal with the dominant mode first, then the variations.

Can the virus mutate to become airborne? I guess; viruses mutate. I don't know if it will change that way; perhaps the first patient that is co-infected with influenza (a true airborne virus) and Ebola will give it a chance.

No One Knows.
 
Top