Ebola, inside information

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: violet

The CDC has no control over the hospital, not sure why you think that.

Why do I think that ?
The CDC is Center for Desease CONTROL and prevention. That's why!

Call me ignorant but I honestly was under the impression they controlled infectious diseases

They are The national public health institute of the United States.

Otherwise, why is it them who do press conferences? To me they are in charge of monitoring diseases, just as police are in charge of monitoring crime.

Can someone please post this pic...

pichost.me...

10-13-2014

Just watched the YouTube video of Texas Governor Rick Perry saying "Goodbye" to the soldiers who were sent to West Africa this past week to "fight" Ebola. For some reason, the looks on their faces and their posture made me feel sad inside. I wonder if they volunteered for, or were ordered on, this possible one-way mission?
-cwm

I did on the other thread, www.abovetopsecret.com... but why not here you go:



a reply to: stellawayten

a reply to: violet

They set standards and conduct research. They have no control over the operations of hospitals.

If a hospital fails to follow procedure, the hospital is liable, not the CDC.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: violet

They set standards and conduct research. They have no control over the operations of hospitals.

If a hospital fails to follow procedure, the hospital is liable, not the CDC.

Yes I agree re liability for legal issues, but I do think they should be preparing hospitals better than they have been. It's not like this threat came at them by surprise. They (the CDC) knew full well there was an outbreak in west Africa and knew full well flights were departing from there and entering the untied states. Before this got here was the time to start prepping by educating , training, sending in staff to help and monitor the situation.

If they don't know what to do, then buzz off with their press conferences inferring that they do know what to do.

ETA if they are setting the standards, then perhaps they're dishng out the wrong guidelines ?

I don't know raymundoko. Seems like a game of semantics. If someone with Ebola sneezes within a 6' radius of you, you have NO concern with contracting the virus? WHO and MDF are saying they believe only 50% of the actual cases in Africa are being reported, so the real numbers are likely much higher than is published.

So this is part of why I believe there is so much confusion. From the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention:

Infectious Disease Epidemiology Program
Airborne and Direct Contact Diseases
Airborne Diseases
Airborne diseases are caused by pathogenic microbes small enough to be discharged from an infected person via coughing, sneezing, laughing and close personal contact or aerosolization of the microbe. The discharged microbes remain suspended in the air on dust particles, respiratory and water droplets. Illness is caused when the microbe is inhaled or contacts mucus membranes or when secretions remaining on a surface are touched. Transmission of airborne diseases can be greatly reduced by practicing social and respiratory etiquette. Staying home when ill, keeping close contact with an ill person to a minimum, allowing a few feet distance from others while ill, and wearing a mask, covering coughs and sneezes with elbow or tissue can greatly reduce transmission. Good hand washing can decrease spread of germ-containing droplets that could be picked up on hands from surfaces or hand contact with secretions. Environmental controls and engineering alternatives help reduce transmission of water droplet aerosolized pathogens.

So what's the definition of aerosolization

Aerosolization is the process or act of converting some physical substance into the form of particles small and light enough to be carried on the air i.e. into an aerosol. The term is often used in medicine to refer specifically to the production of airborne particles (e.g. tiny liquid droplets) containing infectious virus or bacteria. The infectious organism is said to be aerosolized. This can occur when an infected individual coughs,[1] sneezes[2] exhales,[3] or vomits,[4] but can also arise from flushing a toilet,[5] or disturbing dried contaminated feces.[6]

I don't think the CDC, WHO or anyone else knows with 100% certainty that "this" strain is or isn't capable of airborne transmission. They do sure suit up to eliminate any contact with any fluids from an infected person though. I guess I'm just having a hard time reconciling what I'm seeing in response / care teams, reading .gov docs and reports defining what airborne is and what we're being told in the media.

My post on the prior page to the CIDRAP article got screwy after posting. Try it again....

COMMENTARY: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

So tell me again it's not capable of being airborne?

a reply to: raymundoko
Just because there are no known cases doesnt mean that there arent any, and i think it is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly arrogant to assume otherwise. How would we know- really? IF the logic is its only contagious when symptomatic because only when they are symptomatic are they coughing, or vomiting, or crapping everywhere... you are forgetting that people cough in general. People pick their teeth or wipe their nose and dont even think twice. Most people will eject some form of saliva particles when they talk, laugh, etc. All it takes is once. Why are you so confident it ISNT contagious before symptoms are present? Because there aren't any documented cases? There werent any documented cases of Ebola in the US before now.... and yet here we are. There werent any documented cases of actual H2H transmission of Ebola on US soil... and yet here we are. THere wasnt a single documented case of Ebola running rampant, and NOT killing itself out. Afterall Ebola was supposed to be too deadly to be of a concern, it would burn itself out before it caused any issues... and yet here we are.

they said this same thing about polio.

turns out it was contagious before symptoms.

still awaiting rayrays response on the German scientists who disagree with his stance. i guess his usual character/source attack wont work on the oxford journal's peer reviewed study.

hes conveniently ignored it...what...3 times now?

a reply to: LurkingRelentlessly

What? Did you link to a peer reviewed study?

Edit: I just checked. You haven't linked anything of the sort.

a reply to: surfinguru

That's droplet transmission. That seems to be the biggest confusion maker for those not familiar with pathogens.

Droplet transmission is NOT airborne.

Droplet transmission requires you to eject large aerosols from your body. These aerosols are large enough that they cannot maintain buoyancy so they fall to the ground or objects within 3-6 feet of an infected person.

Airborne transmission is significantly smaller aerosols, which are expelled from the body even when breathing, especially in colder climates where you eject more tiny aerosols due to condensation.

Ebola cannot attach to these tiny aerosols, and would have to SIGNIFICANTLY mutate in order to do that. I am talking way more than 3%. Ebola has also proven to be a slow mutater. It will speed up the more human contact it has, but it is just as likely to become harmless to humans as it is to become airborne.

a reply to: surfinguru

No, you absolutely would have concern...that's what droplet transmission is...

a reply to: raymundoko

Another user and I, in separate ebola thread that your frequent, linked to a blog from Dr. Timm H. Westhoff of the Department of Nephrology at the Carité Campus Benjamin Franklin in Berlin where he clearly disagrees with your stance on pre-symptomatic transmission.

from WND

The German physicians published in 2008 the fundamental medical research that formed the basis for their blog comments, demonstrating kidney-transplant patients could carry the norovirus infection that is common in cases of acute gastroenteritis, even if the patient was asymptomatic. Westhoff’s 2008 study provided “the first evidence” that norovirus, typically a self-limiting disease of short duration, can cause chronic infection in renal transplant recipients,” even when there are no symptoms of acute gastroenteritis evident in the patient.

the blog also goes on to cite the history of polio as another example of a virus thought to only be contagious after the onset of symptoms.

to clarify: this is in response to your claim;

The CDC, the WHO and every real medical professional in the field associated with virulent disease agrees with me...(more accurately I agree with them)

a reply to: LurkingRelentlessly

You have absolutely no idea what you linked do you???

First off, the Doctor you think disagrees with me actually agrees with me, but you have been fooled by the junk science site WND...

You are actually quoting this doctor:

Dr. Norman M. Balog, D.O

doctor.webmd.com...

And it is HIS assertions, not the assertions of Dr. Tim H Westhoff that Ebola can be transmitted pre symptoms...

You simply saw a wall of text and just took WND's blog at face value without actually researching it.

Westhoff has an article that has NOTHING to do with Ebola. Nothing AT ALL. But the other doctor twisted the purpose of the report to support his stance.

A Norovirus can shed before and after symptoms and tests have been done to confirm this.

Tests have been done on Ebola, and there are no reported cases of the Ebola virus shedding (except via blood, stool etc) before the onset of symptoms or after recovery.

One needs to only look at the real world observations to know that it is actually extremely difficult for Ebola to transmit between humans if proper precautions are adhered to.

You do realize we would be seeing farm more Ebola cases otherwise right?

Edit: A good example of this type of shoddy work is someone who wants to say HIV can be transmitted without sexual intercourse because someone could potentially have a cut in their mouth and spit/sneeze/cough blood in your eye. Yes, it could be transmitted that way, but that is the odd man out and not how HIV transmits.

a reply to: raymundoko

the WHO is now saying (as of today) that the mortality rate is increasing to 70% and that the number of new cases could reach 10,000 per week by december. that's up a LOT from 1,000 a week. saying that real world observations show that it is extremely difficult for ebola to transmit between humans is not sounding too logical right now.

a reply to: surfinguru

thanks for that post. that's more clear about the two words than i've seen anywhere else so far. i really think we aren't being told everything because it's already causing major panic. it really could be airborne at this point. we're in uncharted territory and i don't think even the experts know for sure.

a reply to: pasiphae

No, this matches projections in 3rd world countries. I've even linked an article that shows there could be an over 50% population decline in those countries.

I think you, and others, are confused about the conditions of those countries.

You are also confusing Case Fatality Rate with Mortality rate.

The CFR is moving to 70%, the mortality rate is around 30% right now for the area infected. It will eventually move to 50%.

(What that means is 70% of the people who contract Ebola in West Africa will die. In the areas of heavy infection about 30% of the population have died)

edit: retracted

fooled by WND. shame on them.

although i do find this comment on the blog important

A careful study of Ebola virus titers in the human respiratory tract, and in respiratory secretions, would be valuable. However during Ebola virus outbreaks the main concern is to save people, not conduct experiments.

and for the record the blog belongs to Vincent Racaniello Ph.D., Professor of Microbiology & Immunology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.

not balog or westhoff.

a reply to: LurkingRelentlessly

No, you again are confused. You are using a paper on a norovirus that is known to shed before and after symptoms. That is literally comparing apples to oranges. Ebola is not Polio. Ebola is not a Norovirus. You can't use a paper on Norovirus to prove something about Ebola.

This whole story started with the doctor I mentioned from Maryland. He is the one who went to WND, who WND sources as their contributer, who they quote in the article and who makes the claims of Ebola transmission.