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.

 

Executive Order -- Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases---signed July 31, 2014

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
LOL other countries don't have a POTUS. The president of the United States is only president here in the United states. I get what you mean . I just wanted to inject a little levity to the discussion.
Me personally? I'm not concerned at all. o reply to: Vasa Croe



Ha...should have put the comma in there after POTUS.....after I left college, anything other than spelling correctly did not really matter to me. I work in the IT world and we have our own language anyways....LOL




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
It's an amendment to an already existing executive order. The initial order was from Bush Jr and was specifically addressing the SARS virus. s reply to: Thecakeisalie



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I knew what you were getting at. So what's nu? 2.2 nutrons per collision. . a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Has it been that long? They do have a long history.

They are also organized under the Department of Health and Human Services. That is a Cabinet level agency reporting through a secretary directly to the President. At the moment, that happens to be President Obama. That is what makes it his CDC as much as it is his DOD or his White House in general. He bought it by election. He owns it until he leaves.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”

― Winston Churchill

www.goodreads.com...



You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel


Read more at www.brainyquote.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: LeatherNLace

Huh? I think you are making the same point I am. The original exec order from Bush did not cover this in such detail. The disturbing part of this order is that it is "broadening" the original order and adding in some specific identifiers.

I am all for the order, but what has caused this order to be necessary in the US at this point? I want to know what they know about what is about to hit the US.


I have not seen the original EO from Bush, so I am unaware of the wording. But the specific identifiers may be to clarify which cases are deserving of quarantine; so as to prevent someone with a common cold being tossed into quarantine with high risk patients. This EO may be "broadening" in the sense that it has added identifiers, but by doing so, it has narrowed the group who qualify for a quarantine. It has narrowed it from anyone with respiratory illness to limit it those that meet numerous qualifiers.

To me, this is a good thing. Rather than only having to meet criteria "A" (any respiratory illness) to qualify for quarantine; now one must meet Criteria "A", "B", "C", etc...

What prompted the revision of the original EO? Could be anything really. Precautionary, perhaps. TB outbreak (with the growing number of anti-vaccine parents out there), Ebola, etc...
edit on 1-8-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: soficrow

This executive order, in my eyes, is linked to Ebola. Ebola is a virus that antibiotics have no effect on anyways.


Vitamin C, lots of your favorite EFA, and vitamin A and E, and eat good as you can.

Ebola might be a scratching kitty cat then.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The truth is antibiotics don't have an effect on any virus. Those are for bacterial infections only. I reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: kaylaluv


That is a respiratory-related illness, unlike Ebola, which is NOT a respiratory illness.

Because certain symptoms of Ebola are flu like? Coughing and sneezing can transmit the virus thru the air or deliver it to surfaces that others may come into contact with.

They also mention fever and transmission with high mortality. Ebola definitely comes under that criteria. I wouldn't forget that they won't mention it directly because of fear of generating fear.

The land of secrets about every damn other subject, dont expect that to change much.
T
The symptoms of Ebola that are flu like are fever and muscle aches. Not coughing and sneezing. Those are not part of the symptomogy of Ebola.


Ebola hasn't been airborne before. If the virus entered through the lungs it would have flu symptoms, because there is a lot of blood in the lungs.

In my layman's opinion.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Ebola is a virus that does not mutate readily. That's one of the things we do know about it. a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It says right there acute respiratory syndrome. You even underlined it. Aside from that you can't cull out just what you believe is important from the whole message. Since when is that the way we look at things.?n reply to: LeatherNLace



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Ebola is sensitive to dehydration or ultraviolet light.

If Ebola gets tough enough to keep its structure through more ultraviolet light than it could withstand in the past, its mutation rate would increase.

Possibly in a positive feedback pattern. More resistant to UV then faster mutation, then more resistant to UV then faster mutation ...



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
He didn't exactly buy it. We the people gave it to him by majority decision. We called it the election. And we gave it to him twice so that tells us what the popular opinion is. Anyway as stated before, this is an amendment to an original EO having to do with the SARS virus. C reply to: MrCynic



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
It says right there acute respiratory syndrome. You even underlined it. Aside from that you can't cull out just what you believe is important from the whole message. Since when is that the way we look at things.?n reply to: LeatherNLace



Yes. Did you read on?

It specifically says



acute respiratory syndromes, which are...


and then it goes on to lists further qualifiers (symptoms) that must be met to qualify for quarantine. It does not say that anyone with acute respiratory syndrome will be quarantined. Other criteria, as laid out in the ensuing words of the EO, must be met in addition to respiratory illness.

I didn't "cull" anything out. I underlined the criteria and left out the filler wording. Sheesh...reading comprehension?
edit on 1-8-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: kaylaluv


That is a respiratory-related illness, unlike Ebola, which is NOT a respiratory illness.

Because certain symptoms of Ebola are flu like? Coughing and sneezing can transmit the virus thru the air or deliver it to surfaces that others may come into contact with.

They also mention fever and transmission with high mortality. Ebola definitely comes under that criteria. I wouldn't forget that they won't mention it directly because of fear of generating fear.

The land of secrets about every damn other subject, dont expect that to change much.
T
The symptoms of Ebola that are flu like are fever and muscle aches. Not coughing and sneezing. Those are not part of the symptomogy of Ebola.


Ebola hasn't been airborne before. If the virus entered through the lungs it would have flu symptoms, because there is a lot of blood in the lungs.

In my layman's opinion.


Nothing new. Looks like Ebola has always been airborne - just like rabies can be airborne - but such airborne transmission is not efficient. It's very rare.


PS. Laymen's opinions are often valuable - provided those opinions are based on a well-considered and educated evaluation of the facts. Which takes a bit of time but not necessarily an institutional degree.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Is it related to SARS? That last section added last night, was about SARS?

You have also said it was about the flu until others pointed out that it specifically and by order, does not relate to the flu and should not be used that way.

As much as you work to interpret what we can all read for ourselves in plain text, I'll simply take the text of the late addition during both a drug resistant TB scare with ongoing search as well as an Ebola outbreak raising alarms from Monrovia to New York.

I am sorry about my choice of words though. I didn't mean to suggest the President bought any elections. He bought what the Executive position brings with it by his winning the elections on fair outcomes. That much is true.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MrCynic

You're forgetting MERS, which is related to SARS.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
If you have blood in your lungs I suggest you see a doctor ....fast....
There are blood vessels in the lungs. That's how we get oxygen.
Dr Kobinger stated that he believed some animals contracted the disease through the inhallation of large droplets from nearby hosts and from the lungs it entered the blood stream. That's not the same as the symptoms of influenza that include a respiratory infection. It's just getting into the blood through the lungs. It's not a lung disease. a reply to: Semicollegiate



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Do you personally believe the addition added within the last day was the result of SARS or MERS? While we have one disease in the wild now by a missing immigrant with resistant TB and Ebola raging, do you believe this addition was actually about one or more illnesses which are not currently of note or actively creating international problems for the public to be aware of?

Honest question, since your posts carry a degree of knowledge in these matters?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Yes. It's that aspect that makes it so hard to study. As one doctor put it. We can't keep the damned thing alive long enough. To me, that's a very good thing. a reply to: Semicollegiate




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join