10 Things You Really Should Know About Ebola

Please read this article from the highly acclaimed science-news page "I F*ing Love Science" (iflscience.com.)

10 Things You Really Should Know About Ebola

IFL Science is a great source with tons of great information to check out. The article I've linked above stands factual yet simple against the varying flippancy and exaggeration put forth by MSM.

I've posted this link to a couple of the other threads on the topic of Ebola, but thought it warranted its own thread.

I encourage you all to reinforce your understanding with balance and real information instead of over-clocking it by teething on the Wire.

Yeah.

The other thing is viruses are opportunist little buggers that love and live to mutate, particularly if helped along a little, like by being introduced to new things and places. Makes them an imperfect weapon too.

Have to agree with you….the resource IFL Science is very useful, informative and educational….

Just going to look at your link now…………(5 mins later) ………. read the link and nothing really new to what I have read already although my concern with this EVD is still it's ability to transmit via sweat……..
Blood, vomit, semen, mucus (?) can all be avoided BUT a sweaty guy/girl in a busy place opening doors with sweaty hands surely poses a BIG risk to others around them..?

Cheers

PDUK

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK

...my concern with this EVD is still it's ability to transmit via sweat……..
Blood, vomit, semen, mucus (?) can all be avoided BUT a sweaty guy/girl in a busy place opening doors with sweaty hands surely poses a BIG risk to others around them..?

Cheers

PDUK

I learned a few new things from the article, (which were thankfully not prefaced by "I think I heard somewhere.")

To answer your question yes of course there is a risk, but no more so than with any other virus really, (except with this one we have no vaccines and you're probably going to die...)

No doubt, this is nothing to take lightly, and I support every effort being made to contain the spread of the virus.

That said: aside from travel restrictions and the good work of medical professionals, not much can be done besides not being a disgusting person. Wash up, don't pick your nose, that sort of thing.

Point being: it's not good at all, but we're not necessarily doomed either.


Yet

And on Prognosis of survivors...

Prognosis[edit]
The disease has a high mortality rate: often between 50 percent and 90 percent. If an infected person survives, recovery may be quick and complete, or prolonged with long term problems, such as inflammation of the testicles, joint pains, muscle pains, skin peeling, or hair loss. Eye symptoms, such as light sensitivity, excess tearing, iritis, iridocyclitis, choroiditis and blindness have also been described. EBOV and SUDV may be able to persist in the semen of some survivors, which could give rise to infections and disease via sexual intercourse.

I was wondering how those that do recover fair out. I know it is Wiki, but there are sources within the article.

Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites

Interesting reading.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes lots of great info there. Thanks for posting.

Therein it seems to confirm what the OP says: that most of the virus is shed during the "acute" stage of the illness (once you are actually sick,)

According to the WHOs website: "a person is not contagious until they begin to have symptoms."

Sounds a little too familiar. Remember the movie in 1995 called Outbreak starring Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo?

The film focuses on an outbreak of a fictional Ebola-like virus called Motaba in Zaire and later in a small town in the United States. Its primary settings are government disease control centers USAMRIID and the CDC, and the fictional town of Cedar Creek, California. Outbreak's plot speculates how far military and civilian agencies might go to contain the spread of a deadly contagion

Hold on! Does that say 'FICTIONAL' Ebola Virus?

Is the release of this real virus based on the movie Outbreak?

Outbreak Movie

Or is this the release of the 'Scare'?

a reply to: Hilux1996

When the ETs come round is it based on Independence Day?

Filmmakers take reality out on a date with action then get her drunk and turn her out as a box office prostitute.

I posted this earlier on a thread about Ebola and am hoping many of you will do the same as I did.

I just sent the White House this message and will send it to all my representatives.

With Ebola being now an uncontrolled virus.

TB is now nearly drug resistant and some strains are drug resistant.

With people coming from all over the world to cross our borders from Mexico.

Why haven't we sealed the borders?

Isn't the public heath crisis enough?



From: scgnews.com...
Ebola is now airborne says scientists.
"Though the method of transmission in the study was not officially determined, one of the scientists involved, Dr. Gary Kobinger, from the National Microbiology Laboratory at the Public Health Agency of Canada, told BBC News that he believed that the infection was spread through large droplets that were suspended in the air.
"What we suspect is happening is large droplets; they can stay in the air, but not long; they don't go far," he explained. "But they can be absorbed in the airway, and this is how the infection starts, and this is what we think, because we saw a lot of evidence in the lungs of the non-human primates that the virus got in that way."
Translation: Ebola IS an airborne virus.
UPDATE: Someone pointed out that in medical terms, if the virus is transferred through tiny droplets in the air this would technically not be called an "airborne virus". Airborne, in medical terms would mean that the virus has the ability to stay alive without a liquid carrier. On one hand this is a question of semantics, and the point is well taken, but keep in mind that the study did not officially determine how the virus traveled through the air, it merely established that it does travel through the air. Doctor Kobinger's hypothesis regarding droplets of liquid is just that, a hypothesis. For the average person however what needs to be understood is very simple: if you are in a room with someone infected with Ebola, you are not safe, even if you never touch them or their bodily fluids, and this is not what you are being told by the mainstream media. Essentially I am using the word "airborne" as a layman term "




We are not just looking at a humanitarian crisis, we are looking at virus' that can decimate the entire country.

If you really care about the American people, Mr. President, you will seal the borders NOW.


(P.S. I am not a hater, I am a citizen who is concerned that massive outbreaks will kill up to 50% of our population quickly if the borders are not sealed.)

I'm confused by your word "released". Please don't tell me that you believe some government infected people on purpose. There are much more successful viruses out there with a much better motility factor that could be used as a weapon. As a weapon Ebola is pretty ineffective. SARS would be a much better weapon that can be spread by air systems into populated areas. To release this virus in this backwoods area of the world pretty much insures you'll loose your war. reply to: Hilux1996

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yeah they've pretty much nailed down the types of biological weapons they like.

Here's 3 other things you should know about Ebola:

1) It's a virus, and 2) just like any virus, it can mutate and 3) such a mutation is completely unpredictable.

My intent is not to scare people, but we are literally a few encoded proteins away from this thing exploding into something that could wipe out half of the human population in a matter of months.

If anything, respect the power of nature because she can be a cold bitch when she wants to.

~Namaste

This is quite an alarmist stance to be taking no? I saw this exact post yesterday in another thread. You're not expecting the populace of ATS to pick up your flag and run with it are you? Of course I can only speak for myself as far as what action I would take and this certainly does not represent my current view on the situation. I don't think we have anything to worry about here in the USA and harboring a fear that fifty percent of our population will die is irrational given our level of sanitation and the number of health care facilities we have.
In Africa they have dirty crowded buildings with poorly trained personnel and a population that is superstitious about doctors in general. Unlike in America where we run to the doctor for every ache and pain. It's not the same world and I sincerely believe your fears are unfounded.
ta reply to: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Hilux1996
Sounds a little too familiar. Remember the movie in 1995 called Outbreak starring Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo?

The film focuses on an outbreak of a fictional Ebola-like virus called Motaba in Zaire

Hold on! Does that say 'FICTIONAL' Ebola Virus?

Is the release of this real virus based on the movie Outbreak?

While I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, the answer is right there in the bit you've quoted. It doesn't say "fictional Ebola virus", it says "fictional Ebola-like virus" - in other words, the story uses a fictional virus, but they have used Ebola as an inspiration.

a reply to: grandmakdw

...And you know I really don't appreciate your long copy/pasted, sensational "message to the white house." Write something new eh?

I have seen it in ETA (another) thread on Ebola, and it's just soaked in frightfulness and contradictions. It's your privilege to post it here, but funny enough this is the thread aiming for a cooler approach to the situation, and so it may not be well received.

Ebola is known to be very ineffective at mutation. It dies when exposed to sunlight. It's even hard to keep it alive to study it. a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Here's 3 other things you should know about Ebola:

1) It's a virus, and 2) just like any virus, it can mutate and 3) such a mutation is completely unpredictable.

While I can't find the source, I was reading recently (from what I recall appeared to be a reputable source) that the Ebola strain in question was relatively stable or resistant to mutation, compared to many other viruses. If true, that's something positive at least!

a reply to: Aqualung2012

Good find. F&S& ...Another good one is written by Maggie Fox (generally reliable and responsible):

Is It Safe to Bring Ebola Victims to the U.S.?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Remember the Military-Industrial Complex? ...Briefly, scientists linked to Fort Dettrick (known for bioweapons research) have been working with several corporate interests in Kenema, West Africa on viral hemorrhagic fevers - in the area where the outbreaks first started. Also of note, Guinea cancelled mining permits issued by the previous corrupt government, and renegotiated for a whole lot more money with another corporate partnership. Then the Ebola epidemic started near the research facitlities.

That's called opportunity and technology meets motive.

Check out this article for more info:

What are US biowar researchers doing in the Ebola zone?

edit on 2/8/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

If biological weapons are used on the general population it will be done by extremists not the world's government's. I don't buy the whole NWO reduction of the population stories. Sa reply to: Aqualung2012