It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
He goes on to end with this explanation:
Ask yourself: If Ebola really was spread from person to person, instead of controlled spread through vaccination - then WHY would the CDC and the US Government continue to allow flights in and out of these countries with absolutely no regulation, Or At All? We have got to start thinking and sharing information globally because they do not give the true perspective of the people who live here in West Africa. They are lying for their own benefit and there aren't enough voices out there with a platform to help share our reality. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, paralyzed and disabled by these and other "new" vaccines all over the world and we are finally becoming aware of it. Now what will we do with all this information?
originally posted by: rebelv
originally posted by: thesmokingman
He goes on to end with this explanation:
Ask yourself: If Ebola really was spread from person to person, instead of controlled spread through vaccination - then WHY would the CDC and the US Government continue to allow flights in and out of these countries with absolutely no regulation, Or At All? We have got to start thinking and sharing information globally because they do not give the true perspective of the people who live here in West Africa. They are lying for their own benefit and there aren't enough voices out there with a platform to help share our reality. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, paralyzed and disabled by these and other "new" vaccines all over the world and we are finally becoming aware of it. Now what will we do with all this information?
Excellent point, and one I have brought up with friends
adding it makes absolutely no sense, but then again
they'll have people in HAZMATS suites waiting for a plane
to land because several people on board had the sniffles,
and hadn't even been to Africa.
Wouldn't logically the first thing we would do as a country
is refuse flights into or out of the infected areas?
Not even mentioning (well, I am mentioning it) that
we've waited until NOW to try and control the outbreak
in Africa?
It seems the television media really wants to panic
people as well as giving air time to these morons
who go on planes and busses and announce they have
Ebola.
Now, it's starting to make sense.
Thanks for your response, I completely agree.
Rebel 5
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: thesmokingman
Interesting article, I love conspiracy and am a sucker for them, so I will have to say that it could be "some truth behind that article".
But I will say that when the DOD is specifically testing one of the vaccines right now to be use on DOD personnel working in ebola infected countries like Liberia and 3000 troops has been deployed to work in Liberia, that is the only country right now that we know is having US troops.
I also want to point out that I am not saying that Ebola does not exist at all....and the vaccines may very well be to keep the troops from any fear of contracting it, I just dont know that it is the contagious monster they are leading us to believe. Interestingly, I did a google search for ebola pictures, and there are not very many. The ones they do show, are consistent with necrosis, which is said to be a result of ebola, I just honestly expected a lot more especially with all of the recent deaths. The ones I have seen on the MSM have not looked like the ones I googled. Kinda weird.
The outgoing Homeland Security Secretary has a warning for her successor: A massive and “serious” cyber attack on the U.S. homeland is coming, and a natural disaster — the likes of which the nation has never seen — is also likely on its way.
So prepare, and bring “a large bottle of Advil,” Janet Napolitano told her yet-to-be-named replacement in a farewell address Tuesday morning.
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: rebelv
originally posted by: thesmokingman
He goes on to end with this explanation:
Ask yourself: If Ebola really was spread from person to person, instead of controlled spread through vaccination - then WHY would the CDC and the US Government continue to allow flights in and out of these countries with absolutely no regulation, Or At All? We have got to start thinking and sharing information globally because they do not give the true perspective of the people who live here in West Africa. They are lying for their own benefit and there aren't enough voices out there with a platform to help share our reality. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, paralyzed and disabled by these and other "new" vaccines all over the world and we are finally becoming aware of it. Now what will we do with all this information?
Excellent point, and one I have brought up with friends
adding it makes absolutely no sense, but then again
they'll have people in HAZMATS suites waiting for a plane
to land because several people on board had the sniffles,
and hadn't even been to Africa.
Wouldn't logically the first thing we would do as a country
is refuse flights into or out of the infected areas?
Not even mentioning (well, I am mentioning it) that
we've waited until NOW to try and control the outbreak
in Africa?
It seems the television media really wants to panic
people as well as giving air time to these morons
who go on planes and busses and announce they have
Ebola.
Now, it's starting to make sense.
Thanks for your response, I completely agree.
Rebel 5
EVERY SINGLE TIME there has been an outbreak in Africa the Red Cross and the CDC have been either on the ground to help or available for input. You can't have it both ways. If it is not our job to police the World, then it is not our job to go to every Country that is having a disease outbreak. Pick your side and stick to it please as to whether it is our job to take care of every single person on Earth...
Last week, when a man was admitted to a hospital in Dallas, the CDC held a press conference. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated that this patient had been diagnosed with Ebola—with a test that is “highly accurate. It’s a PCR test of blood.” (see the 2m06s mark in the video of the press conference.)
This is, indeed, the test of choice for Ebola.
However, as I’ve written, the PCR test has problems. It is open to errors. One of those errors occurs right at the beginning of the procedure:
Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is it just an irrelevant piece of debris?
Another problem is inherent in the method of the PCR itself. The test is based on the amplification of a tiny, tiny speck of genetic material taken from a patient—blowing it up millions of times until it can be observed and analyzed.
Researchers who employ the test claim that, as a result of the procedure, they can also infer the quantity of virus that is present in the patient.
This is crucial, because unless a patient has millions and millions of Ebola virus in his body, there is absolutely no reason to think he is sick or will become sick.
So the question is: can the PCR test allow researchers and doctors to say how much virus is in a patient’s body?
The US diagnostic test for Ebola is utterly unreliable.
Using the test to claim a patient has Ebola or doesn’t have Ebola is scientific fraud.
Therefore, any pronouncements made by the Centers for Disease Control, where all the US testing is done, are worthless.
The PCR is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample may or may not be part of a virus. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.
But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit so it can be observed.
But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.
The PCR never establishes that.
Finding a tiny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.
If Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol, the two Americans who are now back in the US, were merely tested with the PCR to establish a diagnosis of Ebola, no one has any idea whether they have Ebola.