On Sunday, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, said that Mr. Duncan’s medical condition
was quite critical and that he was “fighting for his life.”
Why 'was' and not 'is'? I would say "He is fighting for his life."
I personally think he's been dead for at least 24 hours. The media will not be letting us, the commoners know anything, unless it comes from above.
Tightly controlled they are at this point. They don't want bad ebola news hitting the mainstream on a weekend.
yep ans when they do tell us it will be scripted much like this
George Noory just read out the news and stated the same as well: that Duncan is still alive although health is deteriorating further.
And that he can not find any other sources besides the news out of israel
(along with his guest)
"He's losing ground" the guest reports from what he's gathered from calling around.
I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, however I think the five day window from onset of symptoms to treatment are a major factor for this patient.
Had he been admitted to the hospital on his first visit perhaps his treatment would have been more successful?
Those days were a steady build up of viral load rather than anti-viral treatments, which could be a major factor in treatment.
Like any disease there is a certain point where no amount of treatment is going to cure you.
Once there are hundreds/thousands of cases it will be a matter of triage. Those that are deemed savable will get treatment and everyone else will be
made as comfortable as possible. Hard truth, but it is what it is.
I could be way off base in that assumption though.
I find it very interesting that they changed the story. I took screen shots of both and noticed some discrepancies.
The time stamp from Arutz Sheva was the same for both reports - "10/5/2014 Tishrei 11, 5775." Near the time stamp there's a FB button. Next to
that on the first report (the one where he was dead), it had "1,222 recommend this." The second report had "2,154 recommend this).
I don't know if that is significant or not.
Here's something else: Both reports start with "Thomas A. Duncan, who became ill with Ebola after arriving from West Africa in Dallas two weeks
ago," then the reports change. In the first one the next words are "succumbed to the virus today (Sunday), reports Reuters. Duncan was fighting
for his life at a Dallas hospital on today" - and at that point both reports change.
"On today?" What's up with the really bad grammar?
Why didn't Arutz Sheva simply issue a retraction?
And, as someone else in this thread indicated, why did Dr. Frieden say Mr. Duncan's condition "was" quite critical and that he "was" fighting for
his life? Shouldn't that be "is?"
I've got screen shots of both reports but can't figure out how to post them.
a reply to: dianajune
We can confirm what you've reported about Arutz Sheva. Their report that Thomas Duncan has died has been copied and posted online in a YT video. Go to
the 52 seconds mark:
Here's a screen shot from the vid (The ATS bits at the top are just from my own browser) :
So, we have a load of questions and many have been asked already in this thread.
One of the lines of thinking I suspect is that "they" are gauging public reaction to the varied reports. Because for certain, people in the affected
regions with the money to get out are not going to change their plans to leave based on what happens with one patient in the US. They will still see
the USA and various other western countries as much better places to be if they become sick, and over time, more and more of them will make their way
We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with the W. African epidemic. As of yesterday, the "official" death toll was around 3400 cases. By this time
next week it will be well over 4,000. In another month it will be many times that. The more it spreads, the more "ebola refugees" we are going to see
arriving in various western countries.
So, if Mr Duncan has passed away, then delaying that announcement is not for the benefit of those in the affected W. African regions. Those who can
will be getting out anyway and heading anywhere they can that they think is safer. Any delay is purely because of concerns about "local" (US) reaction
to the news and contingency plans concerning what to do next.
Note to dianajune : to upload images and then post them, please see SkepticOverlord's thread
Using the new features and functions of ATS.5/3. He's one of the site's owners and
also writes most of the code used to run it. It's really not difficult to upload images once you've learned the basics.
edit on 6/10/14 by JustMike because: (no reason given)
Duncan's mom, brother and nephew are driving down from Charlotte, NC to be with him on encouragement from his doctor. They left at 11:00 last night
so I am assuming he hasn't passed yet but is getting ready to.
What probably happened was that the press has his obituary and death notice all set and ready to go. They are just waiting for him to die. Someone
mistakenly put up the obit and notice up early.
If this guy survives, which isn't likely, he'll wish he had died. He left Africa knowing he was infected. He could have started a world wide
epidemic with a deadly disease. He could have easily infected the very people he went to visit, even the children. They should all be very angry
with him. If he survives, he should be prosecuted.
originally posted by: neo96
IF this thread doesn't take the cake.
Every other thread it's evil zionists!
Then they 'report' Duncan died.
Then people jump on the bandwagon.
It's not the op's fault that it was an Israeli news source that made up a BS article claiming the guy was dead when he isn't. This thread should be
tossed into the hoax forum seeing how it isn't true. But don't worry seeing how Israel constantly breaks international law and commits crimes
against humanity there will be another thread where you can come running to the defense of those poor oppressed Israeli's.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.