Ebola in the ER

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: clenz
I understand you're upset about the U.S. not sending units to help over in Africa, sofi,

You misunderstand. I am extremely concerned that the US "rebutted" the need for specialized biological response teams (saying it wasn't valid). In doing so, and doing it immediately, the US set a global precedent, ensuring that other wealthy nations would follow suit and echo their response.

Alright, fair enough, I agree it was a bad and foolish move which sets a bad example for other countries, hopefully they can reverse that choice.

......Answer your questions?

To be honest about everything else though, no it doesn't. I understand how severe and dangerous it is to keep this spreading, and I understand that the more it spreads, the more chances it has to mutate, but I don't see how we can make a conclusion that it absolutely, 100% will jump to airborne. It could take years for that to occur (which in no way lessens the seriousness of this epidemic), but I just don't see it spreading like a flu would anytime soon, and I hope I'm right about that.

As for absolutely 100% going pandemic, again, we can't say for certain. What if next week we see a decline in cases/reports? what if it takes a month to start slowing down despite wealthier countries not pitching in? Would that make you feel better about the situation or would you question the accuracy/truth behind the reports?

I still believe that -if- we see a case or two over in another country, it won't spread very far, if at all. This current epidemic could not have happened in a worse part of the world.

Truly, I'm concerned about the situation over in Africa, and I'm in no way saying that it can't cause global harm, but you said so yourself, critically analyze the situation and figure out how things can be solved. Claiming that it 100% will go pandemic and airborne, to me, seems like you're about ready to throw in the towel and take 1 last vacation somewhere before you succumb to this virus.

a reply to: clenz

I don't see how we can make a conclusion that it absolutely, 100% will jump to airborne.

We can't. But we DO know that it's spreading rapidly with sustained human-to-human transmission already. We know that it's mutating quite rapidly (for Ebola anyway). We know that it's loose in a HUGE population of human hosts, which exponentially magnifies its ability to mutate. and so on. In short, we know that the situation sets the stage for a perfect biological storm.

No - I do NOT recommend throwing any towels in or around. I say everyone should start working together - contributing trained personnel, manpower, whatever's needed - and global corporations in Africa shoulkd start coughing up some cash too.



PS. I already question the accuracy and truth behind the reports - mainly because I read all the contradictions in the African press.

Sophi, and all...
This thread was just posted to ATS. At least SOMETHING shows a modicum of promise. No telling how long it will take to put it in action though (assuming it is indeed a game-changer.)

Link to thread: Silver Nano Particles Inhibit Ebola Virus

P.S. This is not a 'snake oil salesman' company saying this... United Stated Department of Defense study.

a reply to: new_here

I need to see text, hate those grafix. Used nano-silver about 15 years ago - found it not to be so good. Maybe it triggers my other health issues, I don't know. But I prefer the Vitamin C and herbal approach for home medication. ....Just occurred to me - where did USAMRIID find Ebola patients to test nano-silver on in the US? Seems this is all in vitro testing - might work in vivo but maybe not.

I know nano-silver is touted as antibacterial and maybe it's a good viricide. ....

a reply to: soficrow

I did not like the graphics either. I was hoping someone else could make sense of it, lol. The title of the 'report' with the US Seal made me hopeful.

Also, I just noticed the study was done mid August. If it were a game changer, why has it not been put to use on a grand scale. It is relatively cheap and quick to produce, I believe. (Oh, that could be why, actually. No big bucks to be gained by Big Pharma.) Geez, sometimes I don't know if I'm being really logical and astute, or falling prey to conspiracy-mindedness!

Also, you may well be right about the in vitro vs. human result. Dunno. Looks like we may never know, as they've turned their nose up at it over there (so the story goes) in favor of ZMapp.

The more I read, the more I realize that the truth of what is really going on, in all areas of this situation, is not available to us peons.