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, inside information

page: 14
172
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Yep...I'll bet you're right...

All those poor Nigerians, Liberians, Sierra Leon...um...Leonians? Sierra Lions? Died of athlete's foot....

Nothing to see here, folks, no worries - no need to take any precautions whatsoever (thank goodness, right Dallas??)...move along now...




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Wait a damn minute, you are critisizing others and saying they are wrong for posting research that you say is not factual, yet that research says exactly what you just told eNaR?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hi, I hope I'm not jumping into a conversation with too unrelated questions. But ebola is a huge topic of discussion in my circle of friends (we're all students and are just brainstorming and exploring) and as we tried to come up with some answers we stumbled upon this website and are really pleased to find a huge amount of interesting topics and intelligent conversations. I'm surely gonna read some other topics when i find the time, but for now i'd just like to present some thoughts and get your opinion on them.
we can consider it a fact that a lot is beeing kept from us by the media or also kept from the media. so how much do we don't know? is it possible the virus is spreading much faster and there are many more ebola cases in european as well as american countries that they don't want us to know about?
Why is it that in France, they could confirm a false alarm in a matter of hours, while in Macedonia they're taking 48 hours to get the results to make sure if the british person indeed died of ebola? something stinks here,doesn't it?
Did anyone consider a possibility that ebola outbreak was actually caused by some institution/organization (whichever - from terrorist to medical) with some experimental/destructive purpose?
and lastly, what is the medication (silver something) some of you ordered from website mentioned in this thread somewhere, are you taking it as a preventive or just keeping it near you in case ebola strikes?
if you think this post is out of line here, you can freely direct me to some other thread that might deal with this kind of questions
)
have a nice day and let's all hope it gets better instead of worse!



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheComte
Here's the thing: the "authorities" are not going to come out and say it's out of control even if it was. They don't want a mass panic. So no matter what the situation they will always say it's under control and there's nothing to fear.

But does that mean they are lying? Not necessarily.

Ebola is not transmitted easily, as far as we know. HIV is transmitted more easily than Ebola so if you're not worried about contracting HIV then you shouldn't be worried about Ebola. But again, are we being told the whole truth? It's hard to know.


I don't recall people being checked for signs of HIV at airports before being allowed into this country. That, if nothing else, suggests that Ebola poses a far greater threat to the general population. You can bet that the benefits of checking people pre-entry was weighed against the certainty that news that this is being done would telegraph the threat posed by Ebola and it was concluded that the threat was great enough to warrant increasing the fear level. I know that it seems counter-intuitive that taking precautions makes people more frightened, but it seems to be true.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RockerDom
Ebola is too heavy to be airborne. It's a physical impossibility. It is just as likely that Ebola will mutate to become completely harmless.


Not likely. Mutations follow the path of reproductivity. There would be mutations of Ebola that would be harmless, but those mutations won't likely create situations for themselves that lead to propagation and reproduction.

It is, largely, the symptoms of the illness that provide conditions conducive to propagation of the virus. Some strains may be so virulent that they would defeat themselves, killing their host before the host has the opportunity to infect a significant number of new vectors, but a non-virulent mutation would likely not provide itself with opportunity to propagate. And if it did, nobody would notice.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
What? I'm not even sure what your point is with that..

reply to: Jansy



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Im not great at math. And I hope my calculations are all wrong, so please someone crunch these numbers too. I posted this on another thread, but thought I would share it here too.

I was curious as to how many Americans get the flu every year, so I decided to google it.

Its between 5% and 10% of the total population. The 2013 population stats place America as having 316,000,000 total population. 5% would be 1,580,000.

Out of the 1,580,000 or 5% who get the flu every year, an average of 36,000 die from it every year. Which is less than 2 and 1/2%.

So, if even 5% of the total population gets Ebola, and the death rate is 40% (which is conservative) that would mean at least 632,000 people will die, compared to 36,000 from the annual flu.

Aids kills on average less than 16,000 Americans per year.

So, yes, I feel a little panic and fearful. But, I think fear can be used as a tool. I am preparing to the best of my ability to bug-in. Its not that I fear death, but I really dont want anyone to suffer from such a cruel death.

That would actually be the lowest stats, Using the high stats:

If 10% of the population gets Ebola that would be 31,600,000 Million Americans infected. If Ebola has a 70% death rate then the number will go to 22,120,000 Million people who die from Ebola in the US.

I sure hope my figures are off.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bludragin

Thanks, bludragin. Added that article to my collection. I also went back and took a look at the screening tests for AIDS since some people are drawing comparisons between AIDS and Ebola. Back in the day, Western Blot and Elisa were the gold standards for AIDS detection, but an individual would be screened over a period of months-if not years-because of the latency of the AIDS virus. Screening Test for HTLV III . In this paper one of the conclusions is : "...None of the 188 laboratory and health care employees working with patients with AIDS or their specimens were positive for HTLV-III antibodies, indicating that current precautions for health care workers appear adequate....". The same cannot be said of Ebola.

As far as latency and detection, I found this Human asymptomatic Ebola infection and strong inflammatory response. Says "...Blood was collected from 24 close contacts of symptomatic patients. These asymptomatic individuals were sampled 2, 3, or 4 times during a 1-month period after the first exposure to symptomatic patients..." so there is an issue with latency and testing for Ebola.

I was around when AIDS hit the US and still have a video tape of Fauci saying that it was nothing to worry about. Thank God for the internet, because it's a whole lot harder to control information flow now. I keep waiting for this board (or threads dealing with Ebola) to go bye-bye, but maybe not-too many people watching.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

What if a virus best path is not human virility??? Animals are far better carriers than humans.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NoAngel2u

Excuse me?? No research says it's spread by those showing no symptoms. I think you're confused.


edit on 10-10-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Ugh, comparing Ebola #'s to flu numbers is ludicrous. The flu is airborne, Ebola is not.

a reply to: misskat1



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You are not excused lol and I think I've violated t&c quite enough for today, so won't be replying any longer to you.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: incoserv

What if a virus best path is not human virility??? Animals are far better carriers than humans.



That's irrelevant. Animal or human, doesn't matter. The point I was making was that while it is possible that there would be non-virulent mutations of this thing, those non-virulent mutations - whether manifest in animals or humans - would either not provide themselves with an adequate path for reproduction, or would not be noticed if they did as they would cause no symptoms and, therefore, not instigate investigation. They'd simply be ignored as they would just not make themselves evident. Nobody is going to investigate a mutation that does not manifest itself.

Like at every other level of nature, the adaptations (e.g., mutations) that are most conducive to controlling and consuming resources and reproducing will be the most dominant. These would most likely be the most virulent adaptations or mutations, given a virus' usual method of self-propagation.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

the reason the flu was mentioned is because it has been said many many many times in the media that the FLU is something you should worry about and not ebola.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Ugh, comparing Ebola #'s to flu numbers is ludicrous. The flu is airborne, Ebola is not.

a reply to: misskat1



You keep stating that in thread after thread but it would better serve the information stream if you would make sure no one concludes that to mean droplet transmission is included in that narrow scientifically defined claim about airborne transmission.

Also like to point out the multitudes of beliefs that were disproved but each in their day was considered to be doctrine by scientists.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

My point was...YEP You're Right!!! Everybody's running around like chickens sans heads about something that's obviously not a problem.....especially here...the fact that the corpses are stacking up in Africa should give absolutely NO pause whatsoever....even with all that air travel and stuff...

Keep on calm-mongering, dude!! Allay those fears away. No worries. Everyone go back to sleep.

edit on 10-10-2014 by Jansy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Your statements don't line up with anything I've said. Perhaps your being comical? Poor taste if so.

Pointing out that Ebola is very hard to transmit does not change that it is decimating west Africa. Perhaps you should read my posts and actually find out my stance.

I've actuay gone to Africa for relief work...what have you done besides post on the internet?

a reply to: Jansy



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

On Coast to Coast last night they were saying the virus can live on cold surfaces for 4 -5 days like a grocery cart handle, and on another site said a sneeze can contaminate a room for hours.

It may not be air borne yet, but it is still highly contagious.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Ebola will be shown to have similar if not higher transmission rates during winter months. Flu infects only certain cell types whereas Ebola can infect many cell types. It's highly contagious spread through aerosols similar to flu.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join