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.

 

Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

page: 96
128
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

The CDC has NEVER said it "might" be airborne. They have flat out said it isn't.

The Canadian health site said it is suspected that it "could" be, and that is based on a study about transmission from pigs to monkeys. I linked you the very doctor who did that study, and she vehemently disagrees with their assessment.


The CDC said it is known to be able to be airborne. Again,


While all Ebola virus species have displayed the ability to be spread through airborne particles (aerosols) under research conditions, this type of spread has not been documented amo ng humans in a real - world setting, such as a hospital or household.




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: DirtyD

It is reasonable to believe that it can be spread airborn from pig to human, since Ebola is a respiratory infection in pigs and they have shown it can by spread airborn to other primates.

But it is not reasonable at all to take from this research that it can be spread from human to human airborn....because it hasn't been shown that Ebola is respiratory in humans at all.




It hasn't been proven, but the scientists who are are far more qualified than you (who admittedly are nothing near a scientist or medical professional) STRONGLY SUSPECT that it can be airborne from human to human. Please concede a point when you have been given the evidence you asked for, and not just stick to your story by playing semantics. It hasn't been proven, but it is STRONGLY SUSPECTED. Meaning, they're pretty sure it does, but have no real-world firm evidence of it, because, you know, every time someone gets it when they've taken every precaution possible, the naysayers just chalk it up to "a tiny tear" or "incompetent decontamination" no matter how experienced and professional the people who are involved might be. That, IMHO, is "sunshine and rainbows porn."


And there are very qualified scientist and doctors who have studied Ebola that say that Ebola is 100% not an airborn disease.

You can go out and find anyone to match your opinion...the difference between me and you is that I form my opinion based on the PROVEN research that already exists. Where as you, you form your opinion and then have to go search for support. You haven't found anything that should make you hold your opinion as correct...SUSPICION is not PROOF.

It would be very easy to prove that it is airborne between primates...just replicate the pig/primate study with primate/primate. Are you telling me they are too stupid to have already tried that? Or that they know that it isn't airborne between primates so they aren't going to waste their time?

Let me repeat this, Ebola is a respiratory disease in PIGS....which is why it makes sense that it is an airborne transmission from PIGS. Ebola is NOT a reparatory disease in PRIMATES (including humans), so it is not an airborne transmission in primates.

It is so simple to understand it is painful when people don't get it.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

And now when you are proven wrong about the use of the terms "airborne" and "aerosols" you go back to saying "they've never proven it." Aren't you getting tired of being proven wrong?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


You keep posting links you don't understand at all.


And that is the problem...it is frustrating to deal with.

When someone doesn't understand the difference between "suspected" vs "proven" or "potential" vs "reality"...it is hard to have a discussion with them.

People are trying so hard to make this out to be something it is not, it is actually a very sad display of mentality to want something to be worse than it is.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

For some reason an entire part of my post was missing.

You and many others don't seem to understand what an aerosol is medical terms. This is when something floats around in a gas after being released by the body, usually in a sneeze or cough. Ebola has not been trasnferred this way except from Pigs to Primates because pigs hold ebola differently than primates and other animals. For humans to trasnfer Ebola to one another, and other primates, they have to have close contact when heavy aerosols are ejected from the body. This means someone has to sneeze right on you, or cough in your face.

The bold part is what was missing. I must have selected a large portion of text and deleted it on accident.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

And now all you can do is hi-five. Just concede, it will help your credibility in the future. We've provided you the links to the highest specialists in ebola in the world, and provided the correct definition of terms for you. Calling us ignorant now just weakens any future argument you might make.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

For some reason an entire part of my post was missing.

You and many others don't seem to understand what an aerosol is medical terms. This is when something floats around in a gas after being released by the body, usually in a sneeze or cough. Ebola has not been trasnferred this way except from Pigs to Primates because pigs hold ebola differently than primates and other animals. For humans to trasnfer Ebola to one another, and other primates, they have to have close contact when heavy aerosols are ejected from the body. This means someone has to sneeze right on you, or cough in your face.

The bold part is what was missing. I must have selected a large portion of text and deleted it on accident.


And you are ignoring the fact that it has been strongly suspected by two different official ebola-studying organizations, indeed, the best ones in the world, and that your understanding of what "aerosol" and "airborne" means to be incorrect.

ETA: I think it's quite telling that your "byline" admits you're a "disinfo agent." Telling indeed.
edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Here is a Reddit AMA with Author Richard Preston. No, he is not a scientist, but he probably knows more about Ebola than anyone else in this thread since he did actual research with the top scientists/doctors who study Ebola.


www.reddit.com...


Just a few snippets that everyone in this thread should read and understand.



Airborne Ebola? Seems unlikely from what we know about it now. The virus's genes seem to be remarkably stable, in other words it doesn't evolve quickly for reasons nobody understands. A virus, when jumping into the human species, does tend to evolve and change very quicky as it "feels" its way into its new human host. But I think airborne Ebola is less likely.



Great question. Yes, scientists have already done the gene sequence of this new Ebola. It's very close genetically to the Ebola Zaire species, which popped up in 1976 in Congo (Zaire). That was 2,000 miles away from West Africa where the strain is now. How did it get there? Maybe in the bodies of migrating bats infected w/ Ebola … nobody quite knows.



Tell your mother that a) our medical care system can definitely handle Ebola patients if any do crop up in the US and b) it's hard to catch Ebola unless you are taking care of a person who is really sick with it, and the hospitals would be doing that anyway. What the heck, if I step out into the street at the wrong time a bus could kill me, but we can't live in a state of fear about everything that could kill us.



Airborne Ebola - unlikely. Dr. Joe McCormick is right about this, and he was face to face with Ebola patients in Sudan. You can trust him on this. However - there is evidence it was spreading through the air among monkeys in the Reston monkey house (The Hot Zone). But those are a different species of primate than Homo sapiens, us.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Seems there should be a separate thread on "airborne or not" made by certain posters and leave this one to discuss what, who and why's of the decision to bring Ebola carrying patients to a metro area of over three million people.

I consider it total folly no matter the stated precautions.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: kruphix

And now when you are proven wrong about the use of the terms "airborne" and "aerosols" you go back to saying "they've never proven it." Aren't you getting tired of being proven wrong?


It has never been proven that Ebola is airborne in humans.

If it has, please show me the research that proves it.

Otherwise, when you keep saying Ebola is airborne or can be airborne...you are just wrong at this point and with the data that is available.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
Seems there should be a separate thread on "airborne or not" made by certain posters and leave this one to discuss what, who and why's of the decision to bring Ebola carrying patients to a metro area of over three million people.

I consider it total folly no matter the stated precautions.


Hear hear, I agree. This semantic conversation is cluttering a thread that WAS about reporting the latest info and news, and has now become a mud-fight. I challenge the posters who want to continue the discussion on airborne transmission to start a new thread. I will participate, but I'm tired of scrolling through a million "nuh uh" replies every five minutes.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

He is right.

Ebola being Airborne in humans is at this time purely speculation.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: kruphix

And now when you are proven wrong about the use of the terms "airborne" and "aerosols" you go back to saying "they've never proven it." Aren't you getting tired of being proven wrong?


It has never been proven that Ebola is airborne in humans.

If it has, please show me the research that proves it.

Otherwise, when you keep saying Ebola is airborne or can be airborne...you are just wrong at this point and with the data that is available.


It has never been proven because no one is willing to intentionally infect humans with ebola in order to get the perfect conditions to prove it conclusively. Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Let's agree to disagree, or you can start a new thread on the subject. That is all.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

I know that the Monsanto connection to Tekmira was discussed in this thread earlier, however I wasn't aware of any connection between Monsanto and the creator of Zmapp, Mapp Bio.

Is there a connection or are we confusing Tekmira with Mapp Bio?

-Cheers



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
So let me see if I understand. Rather than discuss the fact that this is a real event happening and sharing info, we are going to have a continual debate over aerosol vs airborne. I am a long time lurker, minimal poster - and mostly stick around to read other people's research, and this tit for tat argument is derailing the thread. Aerosol and Airborne are obviously not the same -- period. In my mind: AEROSOL = cough, wet sneeze, moisture exiting your mouth and nose and landing on someone. AIRBORNE: Breathing out. What I take from the Canadian doc is that it's SUSPECTED as airborne due to the pig/primate study. SUSPECTED is not PROVEN, but is enough to warrant concern in my book. I am less concerned about breath transmission than I am someone hacking on something in public and someone touching it and then their face.

That said, who here HASN'T been sneezed on, closely, by some random in public? I know I have and its disgusting. Let's just say one of those people randomly had this horrible disease? Or how about someone sneezing a boogery sneeze onto their hand and then touching a doorknob or shopping cart? That's the stuff that is really f***in scary. So rather than debate over aerosol vs airborne, let's discuss the MEAT of the issue. As Des said, nothing posted here needs to be vetted by any other member for inclusion. Don't agree? Speak your piece, show your proof, move on.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
nun, des, lets not let them win and stray us.

I think we should be trying to contact more of these foreign doctors listed in all the medical journals.
I contacted Guenther from Germany who was linked to the "new strain" publishings, nothing back yet.
Muyembe seems like a good bet.

www.ojvr.org...

On the majority of these journal websites you can register and directly message the author. Lots of them have a single contact email as well.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

I already said I messed that post up. I had already posted the difference between aerosols and droplets in another post.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

But by that logic IFit was airborne it does not spread very efficiently via that route. If it did spread like flu or the cold we would have known by now.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JG1993

THANK YOU for doing this legwork, I appreciate it! Can't wait to hear back from him. Well done, star for you.



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join