Ebola Airborne? The Truth.

a reply to: drwill

...I wondered what you thought about the clean up of Louise's Dallas apartment. Some of the photos showed what looked like a mist wafting from the open door.

You're welcome. ....I think they'll go total overkill on that clean up, and show an "abundance of caution." Good thing too.

This was published in the Journal of Experimental Pathology regarding an experiment done to see if monkeys could contract Ebola transmitted as an airborne virus:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The abstract might say this:

The potential of aerogenic infection by Ebola virus was established by using a head-only exposure aerosol system. Virus-containing droplets of 0.8-1.2 microns were generated and administered into the respiratory tract of rhesus monkeys via inhalation. Inhalation of viral doses as low as 400 plaque-forming units of virus caused a rapidly fatal disease in 4-5 days.

BUT if you read the methods section of the full text:

Monkies were anaesthetized with ketamine HCI for the aerosol exposure phase of the experiment...each monkey was placed in dorsal recombency with its head extending through a rubber dam...the monkey was placed in a gas tight environment controlled Hazelton chamber...The nebulizer, driven by compressed air at 20PSI generated an aerosol flow rate of 16.5l/min...After a 10 MINUTE EXPOSURE the Hazelton Chamber was flushed with clean air...

--that's not a procedure that in any way resembles something like a sneeze. They literally forced the virus down each monky's lungs.

Yet, the authors still say in the abstract: "Demonstration of fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans." That's not well phrased given what they demonstrated in the actual study.

--I completely disagree that the (unethical) lab demonstration using these poor monkeys in a scientific how-to for spreading Ebola in any way shape or form represents the same threat imposed on the general public by the current cases now widely publicized around the world by the news media. Anyone using the above research to suggest that human beings are thus at risk for contracting Ebola as an airborne virus are doing at least two things wrong that equal very bad science:

1. Generalizing from an animal study to a human cohort.

2. Confounding conditions in a lab environment with conditions that exist in nature (i.e., the study above has poor ecological validity given an aerosol was manufactured and highly specific method to administer it in order to infect the monkeys).



*And from the original post, this "research" is not very relevant in a discussion on the threat of Ebola being spread:
CDC

... influenza patients produce aerosol particles containing measurable amounts of influenza virus while coughing. Further, 65% of the viral RNA was contained within particles in the respirable size fraction. Our study was also able to demonstrate that at least some influenza patients expelled airborne particles containing viable virus.

--The above info was published by the CDC about how common influenza virus is spread, not Ebola. To post this in reference to the spread of Ebola is not much better than fear mongering.



Furthermore, anyone who keeps posting the "evidence" that human beings are at risk for contracting Ebola as an airborne virus because of one lone study indicating the virus went from pigs to monkeys having no physical contact needs to read #1 above about what is bad science. It is far more accurate in predicting the spread of an illness to see how human populations are behaving that causes the spread of a virus. Two such studies indicate that airborne transmission is not the primary hazard for human populations. See two articles from the Journal of Infectious Disease:

1. Journal of Infectious Diseases (2007)
"Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites" Online: jid.oxfordjournals.org...

2. Journal of Infectious Diseases (1995)
Transmission of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever: A Study of Risk Factors in Family Members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995
online: jid.oxfordjournals.org...

I'll post some quotes from journal article 1 :

1. "Large outbreaks of EHF [ Ebola hemorrhagic fever ] are usually driven by personto-person transmission, with caregivers both at home and in hospitals being at particular risk"

"direct contact with bodily fluids is considered to be the major risk factor"

"our results support the conventional assumptions and field observations that most EBOV transmission comes from direct contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected patient during the acute phase of illness. The risk of casual contacts with the skin, such as shaking hands, is likely to be low."

ok here is a little truth or truth that is repeated in most reported and papers i can find.
first is a MSDS data sheet that i came across a while back, you know the company that publishes data sheets that come with just about all hazardous and non hazardous materials, the date for this sheet updated in Aug 2010.

here are two sections.

SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.

Humans may be infected by handling sick or dead non-human primates and are also at risk when handling the bodies of deceased humans in preparation for funerals, suggesting possible transmission through aerosol droplets (2, 6, 28). In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13). The importance of this route of transmission is not clear. Poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus (6).

both above come from,Ebola virus PATHOGEN SAFETY DATA SHEET - INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCES SECTION I - INFECTIOUS AGENT NAME: Ebola virus

Airborne and droplet transmission both technically travel through the air to infect others; the difference lies in the size of the infective particles. Smaller droplets persist in the air longer and are able to travel farther- these droplets are truly “airborne.” Larger droplets can neither travel as far nor persist for very long. Fomites are inanimate objects that can transmit disease if they are contaminated with infectious agents. In this study, a monkey’s cage could have been contaminated when workers were cleaning a nearby pig cage. If the monkey touched the contaminated cage surface and then its mouth or eyes, it could have been infected.

Author Dr. Gary Kobinger suspects that the virus is transmitted through droplets, not fomites, because evidence of infection in the lungs of the monkeys indicated that the virus was inhaled.

above is from From Pigs to Monkeys, Ebola Goes Airborne dated Nov 21, 2012

my money is on we are not being told the whole truth, and should be just a little more concerned than some seem or want us to be.

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga
a reply to: soficrow

The reality is..... That in Monrovia, Liberia (One of the great epic slums in the world) there would be near 250k infected right now if airborne. Lets explain Monrovia:
1) no running water.
2) people pee on buildings, crap in the sea, wash in the sea
3) Average persons for 400 sqft 4.
4) Two running toilets in the whole slum that cost money to use.


Infection facts last I looked? about 400.


Fear mongering at its best.
...

To back that up I would like to urge folks to take a look at this photo essay about the conditions in Liberia and why there were so many infections there.


These Photos From Ebola Ground Zero In Liberia Are Horrifying

Now imagine if the virus was truly airborne in those circumstances...
Yes, people should still be very careful and cautious and always apply good hygiene (Wash your hands!). But it should be a general rule, and not just because of Ebola.

Also, do yourselves a favor and go find all human viruses that have changed their method of transmission.

If it's so easy for a virus to change its method of transmission why are HIV-1, Hepatitis C, Rabies and many more still being transmitted in the same ways after decades of existence and passing through millions of hosts...?

Elite plans to put it in Europe on October 24, the fact that through the air very soon possible.

originally posted by: radrad999
Elite plans to put it in Europe on October 24, the fact that through the air very soon possible.

The "fact" is "possible" ?

In English the above statement is a contradiction. Any speculation about Ebola mutations are nothing but this: speculation. The news media has been real sharp on presenting articles about an airborne mutation of Ebola that are nothing but sheer speculation. And this one is not much better than a hoax masquerading as essential news info: www.cnn.com...

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

Yep, there's no way that it is airborne. Then we would have an epidemic a lot worse than is taking place now.

a reply to: Gemwolf

....go find all human viruses that have changed their method of transmission.

If it's so easy for a virus to change its method of transmission why are HIV-1, Hepatitis C, Rabies and many more still being transmitted in the same ways after decades of existence and passing through millions of hosts...?

1. What is all this fuss about when I stated clearly in the OP that Ebola does NOT meet the definition for "airborne transmission"?

2. Why are filoviruses classified as category A biological weapons?

3. Why does the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland stress "fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans"?

4. Given that Ebola is known to infect mucous membrane cells including those in the respiratory tract and lungs, why do you insist that a mutation to airborne involves a complete change in its method of transmission when it apparently does not?

Your comparison to HIV-1, Hepatitis C, Rabies does not seem to apply:

* Rabies has NOT passed through "millions" of human hosts.

*

Blood is the only body fluid capable of transmitting hepatitis C to another person.

* HIV can enter via mucous membranes but attacks the immune system directly whereas Ebola evades the immune system.

....If I am missing something here, please explain.

Ebola virus enters the patient through mucous membranes, breaks in the skin, or parenterally and infects many cell types, including monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, endothelial cells, fibroblasts, hepatocytes, adrenal cortical cells and epithelial cells. The incubation period may be related to the infection route (e.g., 6 days for injection versus 10 days for contact). Ebola virus migrates from the initial infection site to regional lymph nodes and subsequently to the liver, spleen and adrenal gland. Although not infected by Ebola virus, lymphocytes undergo apoptosis resulting in decreased lymphocyte counts. Hepatocellular necrosis occurs and is associated with dysregulation of clotting factors and subsequent coagulopathy. Adrenocortical necrosis also can be found and is associated with hypotension and impaired steroid synthesis. Ebola virus appears to trigger a release of pro-inflammatory cytokines with subsequent vascular leak and impairment of clotting ultimately resulting in multi-organ failure and shock.

As clearly demonstrated in this thread there is no precedent for a virus, in known medical history, changing it's transmission method.

People keep talking about "if it goes airborne!" but to date we have never seen this happen with another virus.

Please click the link, read the thread, and visit the source material within the thread linked above.

This Ebola thing is really getting out of hand - influenza kills more people and is a more realistic threat to those of us in first-world countries than Ebola is. Enterovirus D68 is a much more realistic threat to us as well.

I know we love our doomporn here on ATS, but let's exercise a little common sense. Ebola mutating to become "airborne" would require a very specific chain of mutations, the chances of which are less likely than you winning the Power Ball.

Be safe people.

originally posted by: soficrow
1. What is all this fuss about when I stated clearly in the OP that Ebola does NOT meet the definition for "airborne transmission"?

You defined airborne transmission, but then you wrote:

Researchers from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg showed that airborne Ebola in piglets infected macaque monkeys, leaving evidence of infection in the monkeys' lungs. Worrisome because macaques and humans are genetically close.

--Sounds like you're concerned human populations are at risk for contracting Ebola as an airborne virus, as supported by the above research regarding monkeys getting infected by pigs through (apparent) airborne transmisson of the virus.

You then posted a link from the dailymail, which is often a news source that's not much better than a tabloid. Quote:

Canadian researchers have carried out experiments showing how monkeys can catch the deadly disease from infected pigs without coming into direct contact." [You emphasized the following] ...large droplets of moisture containing the virus were being exhaled with the piglets' breath.

--Again, sounds like you're suggesting that human beings are at risk for Ebola infection from other infected human beings by "droplets of moisture containing the virus."

Sorry if I'm misreading. I see plenty of people on ATS posting things like: I don't care what anyone says, it's airborne! See here: www.abovetopsecret.com... I'm not even posting anything there! The news media is encouraging this kind of angst and speculating about mutations of Ebola that will become a threat as an airborne virus.

a reply to: TinkerHaus
a reply to: Petros312

Again, my point is the epidemic needs to be stopped in West Africa before it spreads further and mutates to become airborne - a possibility however slim. Not sure what your point is. Are you saying the world should keep its back turned and wait for it to "burn itself out"?



As explained above, Ebola's mutation to efficient airborne transmission is NOT a major dramatic change - it's already halfway there.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: TinkerHaus
a reply to: Petros312

Are you saying the world should keep its back turned and wait for it to "burn itself out"?

As explained above, Ebola's mutation to efficient airborne transmission is NOT a major dramatic change - it's already halfway there.

Don't know how you're evaluating "halfway there" for Ebola to mutate to an airborne virus, but my point, other than Ebola not really posing a threat to human populations as an airborne virus, was to stay away from news articles like this one:
CNN BS
...because they are intentionally designed to encourage mass hysteria.

a reply to: Petros312

If you bothered to read my posts you would know that I rely on Pubmed's National Institutes of Health database for background information. Have no idea how that dailymail piece snuck in (maybe layman readibility?) but here's my reference article: Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates. But the following come from Pubmed.

I am not interested in doomporn or generating mass hysteria - just in finding the truth. If people were not coddled, undereducated and kept in the dark, we all could do our own risk-benefit analysis. And should.

Marburg and Ebola viruses as aerosol threats.

....(Marburg and Ebola viruses) are highly infectious as respirable particles under laboratory conditions. For these and other reasons, filoviruses are classified as category A biological weapons.

Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus.

....Demonstration of fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Petros312
If you bothered to read my posts...

What? How the heck else could I possibly know that you included "background information" from the dail ymail.co.uk unless I read both your post and the links?

Obviously I read your posts because I responded with journal articles contradicting the notion that it's likely Ebola poses a threat to human populations as an airborne virus. You said it again here:

originally posted by: soficrow
Again, my point is the epidemic needs to be stopped in West Africa before it spreads further and mutates to become airborne...
it's already halfway there.

So you're providing no explanation of what it could possibly mean that Ebola is "halfway there" as a mutation that is airborne, you continue to say it WILL become airborne, confounding research on Ebola transmission with what the CDC says about the spread of common influenza, ignoring that the experiments you cite about aerosol sprays are lab-manipulated methods for transmission that don't generalize to the real world, yet you insist you're only trying to get to the truth...

originally posted by: soficrow
I am not interested in doomporn or generating mass hysteria - just in finding the truth.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: TinkerHaus
a reply to: Petros312

Again, my point is the epidemic needs to be stopped in West Africa before it spreads further and mutates to become airborne - a possibility however slim. Not sure what your point is. Are you saying the world should keep its back turned and wait for it to "burn itself out"?

As explained above, Ebola's mutation to efficient airborne transmission is NOT a major dramatic change - it's already halfway there.

Ah, such an exceptional straw man argument. Can you please point to exactly where I said we should turn our backs and let it "burn itself out?"

No, I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be concerned and take the appropriate measures to minimize the impact of Ebola. What I am saying, however, is that you should pull your head out of your avatar and think rationally. Instead of posting all of this sensationalized, unfiltered doomporn, try to post a bit of objectivity to balance yourself out.

a reply to: Petros312
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Instead of posting all of this sensationalized, unfiltered doomporn, try to post a bit of objectivity to balance yourself out.

Go nuts guys.

Ebola, inside information

Ebola: Facts, Opinions, and Speculations.

What If it is not Ebola?