Two more countries report citizens killed by Ebola

originally posted by: redshoes
a reply to: intrptr

Ebola is Highly infectious. Any 'jihadists' as you put it stupid enough to go looking for it, without the proper background, training and equipment, is unlikely to make it out of the country, let alone have access to a Level 4 lab where the virus could be weaponised.

Also viruses are not good candidates for germ weapons, as no one has yet managed to develop a reliable delivery platform. Viruses, unlike bacteria, require a living host to sustain them. Short of directly administering body fluids from one victim to the next, its just not practical as a germ warfare agent.

Have you ever read this article? It's a good one. Weaponizing these viruses has been in the works for decades...

originally posted by: SunnyRunner360
a reply to: grandmakdw Transmission from animal to animal, does not mean it is airborne for animal to human or human to human. This is an example of animal to animal airborne transmission. Not to be taken lightly as it is indicative of the viruses ability to mutate, but not indicative that a human or animal can pass the virus to another human through airborne transmission. This also does not mean that it has not mutated to airborne transmission, but we are not being told that at present and there is no published case study to make that suggestion.

With the rapid way it is spreading, we must for the safety of everyone

assume the studies with animals translate to humans

otherwise our blind ignorance will further spread the virus like wildfire

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: grandmakdw

There is no indication that this outbreak spreads via airborne particles. The epidemic is behaving like Ebola always has. Through contact with sick people.

You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The animals studies tell me otherwise.

I would rather be safe than sorry.

I once caught an awful disease from a kid on an airplane that was across the aisle from me. I nearly died of pneumonia and was sick for 6 weeks. The stewardess ignored the fact that the kid was coughing, had the flushed color of a high fever and was lethargic. By the way this family was from south america, I could tell, my brother-in-law is from south america and they were definately from there, I could tell by the way they spoke, dressed, etc.

Denying even the remotest chance of airborne spread in the case of disease is asking for a pandemic.

Don't stick you head in the sand, or maybe, do to protect yourself!

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
It's also killed on surfaces with common disinfectants. I already linked it in another thread. If you want proof Google it. I'm not linking it again. Don't believe me? That's your prerogative. reply to: intrptr

Why did you think I disagree with that?

Ebola is a biologic and most people have Clorox.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

As far as I'm aware, US AMRID amongst others have been researching ebola and other viruses for years. It would be naive not to assume that attempts are and have been made to create weaponised agents based on these viruses.

Interesting article, however, you're missing my point. Let me try and be more clear.

1. Most viruses are not capable of surviving for long without access to a reservoir or host organism. This makes them difficult candidates for perfecting biological agents because in order to be effective, you need to have a transmission system that can keep the virus alive for long enough to infect your target.

2. Anthrax is a bacterial agent, not a virus. Bacteria, unlike viruses, especially 'hot' viruses like Ebola and other haemorrhagic deseasess, don't have the same level of dependence on a reservoir or host organism and can live outside a host for longer. The article you referenced, specifically talks about a weaponised form of Anthrax. So it makes sense that most of the bio weapons that have been invented would be bacterial in nature rather than viral.

3. Manufacture. In addition, in order for a biological agent to be a viable weapon, you need to be able to manufacture it in large enough quantities. It is extremely difficult to manufacture a virus. Again, bacteria are a bit less complicated to manufacture.

Does this mean that there aren't people out there that would like to produce and use a weaponised form of ebola, no, I'm sure there must be. However there are significant biological limitations that would need to be overcome. I believe those limitations are beyond the ability of the 'Jihadists' that were mentioned in the original post.

Don't get me wrong, If there was someone out there who was infected and had the intent to infect others, I'm sure they would have some degree of success. But on a mass scale, this would be difficult to achieve unless you had managed to overcome the issues around manufacture and transmission that are scientific challenges for anyone wishing to exploit a hot virus like Ebola as a weapon. It would be easier and probably cheaper to go dig up a site from a previous Anthrax or smallpox infestation and try to use these as weaponised agents.

Ebola's own biological limitations, in its natural form make it difficult to weaponise and the science and expertise required to develop a synthetic virus that overcomes these limitations is rare and expensive.

As with any threat, you need to evaluate the likelihood of it becoming real and act accordingly. Simply screaming 'Jihad' because one man in Saudia Arabia, has died, (and as yet its unconfirmed that Ebola was the cause) is at best premature.

Like I said in my OP, If there is Ebola in KSA, then that is something that would worry me greatly as I believe, based on my knowledge and experience of the health care system in that country specifically in relation to Infection Control practices, that the risk of a global pandemic would be increased significantly if that was the case.

But I seriously believe that anyone who tries to mess with this bug in order to deliberately use it as a weapon is likely to die long before they achieve success.

a reply to: redshoes

Great post, thanks.

The article I linked to does mention considerable efforts in weaponizing ebola & variants, not just anthrax. If the information in that article is legitimate (I have no way to know if it really is), Ken Alibek stated that the Marburg Variant U (ebola) was "on the verge of becoming a strategic/operational biological weapon, ready to be manufactured in large quantities and loaded into warheads on MIRVs" - and that was 1991. The article does go on to say that Variant U was never put into the Soviet strategic arsenal, as they favored Black Death, Anthrax & Smallpox.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I recognize you know way more about this topic than I do. I just thought it was a fascinating article. I have spent some considerable study of war history, war strategy, military tactics, etc. and I find the topic of weaponizing ebola [morbidly] interesting.

Thank you again for providing the info you have.

Sorry i didn't think you would but in the last few days of debating this issue I've had,"have a source for that" thrown at me over and over. Sorry not meant for you exclusively. I didn't mean to sound rude. d reply to: intrptr

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

No problem, I wasn't offended. I thought maybe you were replying to me by mistake.

regards,

intrptr

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I know. There's another thread with your article linked shouting EBOLA out of control It's been a tense and interesting few days here in la la land. I apologize to anyone if I come off as crass or rude.

See the post below yours. You're not the only one. I guess I need some milk and cookies and a time out. a reply to: intrptr

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Accepted. No harm done. We're all on edge and worried about this ebola thing, among many other issues.

I hope your day gets better

a reply to: [post=18247754]Stuyvesant[/post

Yes there is a reason that books like The Stand and movies like Outbreak are so popular. If you were alone in your morbid curiosity Stephen King would be on food stamps. LOL

I find the topic of weaponizing ebola [morbidly] interesting.

Yes. There is a reason books like The Stand and movies like Outbreak are so popular. If you were alone in your morbid interests Stephen king would be on food stamps. LOL.

edit on PMu31u0883200312014-08-06T13:00:00-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

LOL I'm donating plasma later. I don't hold out much hope.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
See the post below yours. You're not the only one. I guess I need some milk and cookies and a time out. a reply to: intrptr

Run screaming into the woods, works wonders for me.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

Wow! a nice complimentary post on ATS? Now I really am scared!



Seriously though, just finished reading the Robert Preston article and it scared the bejesus out of me. Can't shake the image of that SCUD missile that ISIS have been touring around Syria heading west from Iraq.

I guess it all boils down to how reliable Alibeck is since most of the information is based on his account. I have no doubt that the Russians may have a more developed bio weapon program then we are aware of. But again, we're talking about a serious scientific effort that took years and years to develop, even if it is true. I seriously doubt, but can't be certain, that ISIS would have access to the expertise or inclination to develop bio weapons, however I have to believe that the current Ebola outbreak doesn't really increase the likelihood of a deliberate bio attack from jihadi terrorists.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: [post=18247754]Stuyvesant[/post

Yes there is a reason that books like The Stand and movies like Outbreak are so popular. If you were alone in your morbid curiosity Stephen King would be on food stamps. LOL

Don't forget the Andromeda Strain. I mean the original…

Yes. One of my favorite Michael Crichton books. Now Dan Brown has inferno about...You guessed it...an engineered weaponized virus. It's another Robert Langdon story. I will forever see that character as looking exactly like Tom Hanks. Like Morgan Freeman will always be the face of Alex Cross.
I'm on chapter 3 and I just downloaded it an hour ago. Kindle version. reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: grandmakdw

There is no indication that this outbreak spreads via airborne particles. The epidemic is behaving like Ebola always has. Through contact with sick people.

You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The animals studies tell me otherwise.

I would rather be safe than sorry.

I once caught an awful disease from a kid on an airplane that was across the aisle from me. I nearly died of pneumonia and was sick for 6 weeks. The stewardess ignored the fact that the kid was coughing, had the flushed color of a high fever and was lethargic. By the way this family was from south america, I could tell, my brother-in-law is from south america and they were definately from there, I could tell by the way they spoke, dressed, etc.

Denying even the remotest chance of airborne spread in the case of disease is asking for a pandemic.

Don't stick you head in the sand, or maybe, do to protect yourself!

Getting sick while traveling by plane is quite easy. I went to Israel in '88 and came down with a horrible cold right after I got there. The flight lasted over 12 hours....a long time to breathe air that keeps circulating over and over.

It's been reported that possibly 30,000 people may have had some exposure to Ebola through Mr. Sawyer. How long has it been? Are we still within the three week incubation period?

I understand there are disagreements as to whether Ebola can be airborne. I believe anything is possible, esp. in close quarters like in a jet. Think of how easy this can be to spread if one is already having symptoms. What if an infected person visits the restroom, doesn't wash his/her hands, touches the doorknob, overhead storage compartment, etc, etc on the way back to their seat?

Then whoever comes along and touches those same surfaces will be exposed as well.

I try not to be paranoid about these things, but having a complicated medical history makes me to not want to take risks, esp. with my having asthma. Even the common cold can make me very ill. I like using hand sanitizers and try not to use public restrooms. I use those sanitizing wipes for shopping carts in the store.

On a related note (kind of) I went to my doctor's for a routine appt yesterday and was not surprised to see someone take a magazine, go to her chair and then cough - really hard - right into it! Wanna bet she put it back on the stack for the next person to use?

Next time I will bring my own reading material!

I'm still a fairly new poster here and have much to learn about this disease. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but isn't this easier to spread than tptb will admit? What else can we do?

It seems every day there's a new report about yet another country having Ebola.

It's obviously not airborne in the way a typical illness might be. If it were, the cases would be much, much higher. I suspect that poor conditions, facilities, weather, etc.. have as much to do with the high infection rate as anything else. If it were airborne, the cases would be in the 10's of thousands.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Back in 1918 at the end of world war one the Spanish flu went pandemic. It traveled around the globe in a day when air travel was not common. In a fort in Kentucky a man got sick on March 2 . By the 10th eight days later 100 soldiers were sick with the disease. Eight days later. 100 fold increase in cases. Flu is an airborne disease. Now compare that to this outbreak of Ebola. This outbreak began some time in late February or early March. Over 150 days later there have only been 1700 cases. If it was airborne there should have been 100 New cases every 10 days and each of those should have spread to 100 more. There would be tens of thousands of cases already. Every person on every plane every person in every airport could have been a potential carrier. That's not the case. The history of this outbreak doesn't support an airborne theory.


a reply to: grandmakdw

I found this very helpful in trying to keep everything in context. Very sound logic IMHO. I will still be uneasy until plane travel from the region is halted indefinitely and the outbreak stemmed. But this take on it definitely makes it appear slightly less daunting.

Thanks