Ebola, the ZMapp Serum, and the Changing Dr. Brantley Story

originally posted by: WanDash

originally posted by: loam
...WTF????

...Still confused.

...These stories completely contradict each other.

This is the new norm, loam
...the new normal.
I can't recall a story within the last year, that wasn't chocked full of contradictions...among/between...all publications.

Funny that, if there really was a NWO manned by TPTB, their narratives would be on the same page to move things along according to their grand scheme.
What you are describing is entropy, in the old days everyone in the US got the gospel from Walter Cronkite's lips as he read the script each night, now it is babble.

a reply to: kruphix
I get the notion that the Media is all about breaking news, career building, and $$$.
When the news is about Gaza, it's disturbing, but it's way over yonder, so to speak. The news of a typhoon is upsetting and tragic, but I'm not going to bug out. Ditto for Bird Flu.
Many people are worried and/or confused about the garbled news about Ebola because the name of the illness is a power word, one that triggers horrific images. It's the boogeyman in a Hazmat suit. Until now, the boogeyman wasn't so scary because it killed its host before it could rip across borders. But it did spread this time. It's a bio-trainwreck, one that will hopefully get cleaned up, but until then, many folks will slow down and take a gander. Only it's not a train. It's an emotional trigger.

a reply to: kruphix

The news stories didn't just conflict, the SOURCE's story did. Do your research and read the quotes from Samaritan and the CDC.

a reply to: loam

My Dad always said, "Ya gotta learn to think fer yourself, godammit!" He was right. Sometimes, people lie to protect confidentiality (probably what happened here). Other times, lies reflect shifting agendas. Lies also result from hidden agendas. ....We all have to sift the evidence, think, evaluate, check the sources, check other sources, re-evaluate and think for ourselves.

It's called being responsible.



Just tripped over this:

Experimental Ebola drug based on research discoveries from Canada’s national lab

The experimental Ebola drug given to two American aid workers is based on years of research done at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. ...

...Sources have told The Canadian Press that two of the three monoclonal antibodies in the drug were designed at the Winnipeg laboratory.

The work was done under the leadership of Dr. Gary Kobinger who heads the special pathogens research program at the national lab.

...The third monoclonal antibody in the product was developed by a U.S. government laboratory.

Rights to the Canadian-designed monoclonal antibodies have been acquired by a U.S. company called Leaf Biopharmaceutical of San Diego, California.

The company is partnered with Mapp Biopharmaceutical, also of San Diego, which makes the experimental therapy, called ZMapp.

The confusing stories are bad enough. But what I want to know is how the heck it worked so fast. Sounds more like an antidote then antibodies.

I seen the "Only Enough for One: Experimental Ebola Serum Used on U.S. Patient" but hadn't heard about the 2 dose story? hmm
These Ebola stories grow stranger by the day.
I'm still trying to figure out how the woman who died in the UK just after the flight from Africa was tested for Ebola and found negative so fast but the guy in the NYC hospital has to wait 24-48 hours? Then I read it's a hard test and actually takes several days?

It's a scary thought, but PERHAPS the doctor nor the nurse were never infected, and the rest is just showboating to solidify an agenda. Yeah, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

I agree that the OS can't change so drastically, especially being reported from source. We ARE NOT stupid. If you report something, Doctor's a hero, gave his sample away, stick with it. DON'T concoct another story to fit into play.

I honestly can't believe either story. It HAS TO BE one or the other. Logic dictates they are lying. Ergo, smoke and mirrors to hide something else going on.

a reply to: Staroth

Exactly.

According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.

Link.

But the UK announced almost immediately that she was negative. Of course, no mention too that rapid tests commonly produce false negatives. Brantley, Sawyer, & Nshamdze all tested negative on their first tests.

a reply to: Staroth

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was 4 days to culture for an Ebola Positive. No way you can tell immediately.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: WanDash

...Except the primary SOURCES for these stories is Samaritans and the CDC. The contradictions come from THEM.

...THEY said one thing.....and then another completely different thing.

Thanks for responding, loam
You DO see the same in almost every story reported by more than one publication, nowadays...
...Each 'journalist' sitting in the same press conference...with quotes that sometimes match...and other times, don't...
It makes me so angry, I want to pull...their...hair out!

ETA: If, indeed, the two stories are from two different CDC/Samaritan interviews/press-conferences...then, apologies to the journalists involved. At this time, however, I am going with --- it's the journalists.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
...Funny that, if there really was a NWO manned by TPTB, their narratives would be on the same page to move things along according to their grand scheme.
What you are describing is entropy, in the old days everyone in the US got the gospel from Walter Cronkite's lips as he read the script each night, now it is babble.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with the first premise...
If such a setup is in place...confusion (what to believe?!?!) is one of the most valuable tools that can be employed on a populace...
Confusion keeps people separated/divided...and fighting.........each other.

As to your second premise - I agree.

a reply to: loam

My guess is these news stations used different sources and one used the charity as a source and they didn't want to make Dr. Brantley look bad for changing his mind.

a reply to: loam

My guess is these news stations used different sources and one used the charity as a source and they didn't want to make Dr. Brantley look bad for changing his mind.

a reply to: loam

There wasn't enough for both because only 1 had thawed.

I really don't see a problem here, except maybe the initial explanation wasn't clear enough.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Ok...let me spell it out for you.

Franklin Graham made his statement on Facebook, Thursday, July 31st at 8:00am. This is the full statement:

This morning Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol are still stable but in grave condition. Dr. Brantly has taken a slight turn for the worse overnight. Even as he battles to survive, this heroic doctor is still focused on the wellbeing of others. Yesterday an experimental serum arrived in the country, but there was only enough for one person. Dr. Brantly asked that it be given to Nancy Writebol. However, Dr. Brantly received a unit of blood from a young 14-year-old boy who had survived Ebola because of Dr. Brantly’s care. The young boy and his family wanted to be able to help the doctor that saved his life.

Link.

So the serum arrived in the country (not the hospital) on Wednesday. He did not say there were two doses that would be thawed at different times and that Brantly offered the first dose. He said "there was only enough for one person" before either dose had arrived at the hospital or any thawing had been done. Note the past tense he used.

The serum vials themselves did not arrive at the hospital until Thursday morning.

The ZMapp vials, stored at subzero temperatures, reached the hospital in Liberia where Brantly and Writebol were being treated Thursday morning.

Franklin Graham's initial statement was obviously untrue.

ETA:

So this was either a false narrative Graham wanted to support how 'selfless' his doctor was or something else was in play. In my opinion, confusion on Graham's part was not it. This was a purposeful deception.

a reply to: loam

Franklyn Graham's statement was obviously untruthful

For what purpose?

I'm really struggling to see anything of significance here, maybe the second dose arrived on another day? There were two days between Kent and Nancy contracting the virus, maybe they sent one for Kent, then Nancy got it, so they sent another.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Cross post. See ETA above.

But I'll further add that Graham also said in relationship to this 'selfless' act:

“Dr. Brantly has demonstrated once again how Jesus sacrificed for us," he said. "We pray for Kent’s full recovery and healing.”

a reply to: loam

Check my edit too.

Yes the Christian overtones are strong with Franklin Graham..

Why don't you ask him to clarify?

a reply to: AlphaHawk

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
...maybe the second dose arrived on another day? There were two days between Kent and Nancy contracting the virus, maybe they sent one for Kent, then Nancy got it, so they sent another.

Did you even read the CNN article which is now the 'current' story and repeated all across the web?

Both vials arrived at the same time.

The ZMapp vials, stored at subzero temperatures, reached the hospital in Liberia where Brantly and Writebol were being treated Thursday morning.

Which makes a lot more sense than them arriving in separate shipments.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Yes the Christian overtones are strong with Franklin Graham..

Why don't you ask him to clarify?

Excellent suggestion, but do you honestly think I'll receive a reply?



The better question is why doesn't the media ask that question???