Second person in Texas may have Ebola

In a natural environment, there is no conclusive "fact" that the spread of Ebola among human beings occurs as an airborne virus. In a lab environment it has been demonstrated using aerosol spray, but if you read how this was accomplished you'd see they forced the virus into the poor monkies' lungs. The graphic depiction of hazmat suits and isolation chambers are not proof that Ebola is spread as an airborne virus. These are precautions being taken for the workers in close PHYSICAL contact with the patient.

Anyone claiming that if you "do the research" you find that human beings can obviously contract Ebola as an airborne virus in the natural environment needs to post better evidence than scary photos.

Here's what British news posted about the second person in Texas who is a law enforcement official:

"Anxiety grows in US after death of Texas Ebola patient"

Right at the top of the article (next words): "Hours after Thomas Eric Duncan became first Ebola fatality in the US, official who had visited contaminated apartment shows ‘some’ symptoms." Only buried into the middle of the article do they write: "He was transported by ambulance to the hospital after going to an urgent care facility with 'some' Ebola-like symptoms, which can also be symptoms of other illnesses."

Meanwhile, something like a headache or fatigue is an "Ebola-like" symptom.

--the obvious leading association here is that the official likely has Ebola now, but even a symptom like a fever is not associated exclusively with Ebola and could be signs of many other more common illnesses, like influenza. Yet, you see the news media is ready to add to the hysteria by speculating the worst. My point is that the news media is just as responsible for anxiety growing than the "outbreak" of the actual Ebola virus in the US.

Here's another example of the same tactic being used by the news media:
Man from NYC with Ebola-like symptioms

originally posted by: violet

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: violet

Did the local authorities make mistakes with Duncan? Absolutely. I never said they didn't; what I observed was that they were being more prudent and appropriately so. Seems to me that you think that they will continue to make mistakes even after the picture showing a nearly covered head to toe possible infected man. I see an improved response process.

To err is human, to forgive is divine.

Its not something one should make errors with is my point. So they cover him up for a photo moment with the press. Of course they do, now. Honestly, its disgraceful to see how lacsidaisical they are being with this. It just does not Iinstill confidence and puts ALL of us at risk who don't even live in Dallas. If you think that's ok then that is your choice. Its not ok.

Yes I do think they will continue to screw up. Its only a matter of time before we hear how they allowed a hundred or so into your airports that infected thousands around the world. Then that will turn into millions.
And how long before news comes out that it isn't just this deputy in Dallas ? If they even divulge the info. Word is, there's more.

Well, the screws up at the beginning were the local government's and probably the CDC's for not assuring that every precaution was taken and that those involved were taking those additional precautions. Yeah, they botched it. If any one of these people that were there on official business contract ebola, then they blew the protocols. The thing is they're all humans just like you and me. Nobody is perfect all the time and that's my point. The nurse in Spain may have had a contaminated part of her suit come into contact with her face. Someone could do a quick brush of their eye to clear something from their vision--that would be enough. When it comes to containment, all those little tics and habits we have as human beings may come back and bite us.

A long time ago while taking immunology and pathology, every member of the class was assigned a bacteria. Out of the 30 person class, only 4 of us got anything that was a contagion and those 4 students who were assigned contagions were selected based on their existing habits. If they had good habits that made for good lab habits and would keep the pathogen contained, they got something infectious to work with. They didn't tell the class who got the infectious diseases though to assure that everyone treated their bacteria as if it were infectious (using fear as a teacher, I suppose). I was assigned conjuctivitis because my good habits were thoroughly ingrained (I'm OCD). The OCDS in the student pool start getting noted in university.

So basically, you've got the normal people working in these fields whose habits might not be so conducive to working with Ebola and then you've got the super cautious, paranoid neat freaks. The former is probably going to work for a hospital. The latter is going to end up at the CDC--mecca for the OCD biologists and MDs. You don't somebody with tics and bad habits working with super bad viruses and bacterias. You want the paranoid mofo.

A police officer? He's going to be filled with tics and habits--guaranteed--because he'd not have had any training at all on what is okay and what isn't. Am I surprised that he might have gotten infected? No and really they shouldn't have had anyone untrained in infectious disease around Duncan period. Totally agree with you there.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I agree they shouldn't have allow untrained persons into an infectious area.
Those trained in the field need to be trained to know their bad habits are unacceptable.
I'm OCD about cleanliness and transfer of germs. I see most people are not. I see people pulling in the garbage cans after garbage day and not washing their hands! They head straight to the kitchen. Or those who prepare poultry on their kitchen counters and don't give it and the sink, taps etc, a wash down with bleach. I won't even let people in my kitchen to cook. I say no thanks to help cleaning up. I'm so darn picky. I get teased for it but I don't care. So yeah , I get what you're saying there.

a reply to: violet

OCDs unite!! I have issues eating at other places because I am so OCD about what I and my family ingests. Cooking is when my OCD is the most prevalent. I probably wash my hands 15 times at least while cooking a simple dish. My kids sometimes think I'm a little nutty about germs but then I just observe to them that I have collected jars of water for inspection and swabbed and cultured a variety of surfaces due to my biology major. Then I just look them point blank in the eye and tell them "you don't want to know what gets cultured" in my most ominous and calm tone. That's when they generally go wash their hands.

originally posted by: Petros312
In a natural environment, there is no conclusive "fact" that the spread of Ebola among human beings occurs as an airborne virus. In a lab environment it has been demonstrated using aerosol spray, but if you read how this was accomplished you'd see they forced the virus into the poor monkies'(sic) lungs. The graphic depiction of hazmat suits and isolation chambers are not proof that Ebola is spread as an airborne virus. These are precautions being taken for the workers in close PHYSICAL contact with the patient.

Anyone claiming that if you "do the research" you find that human beings can obviously contract Ebola as an airborne virus in the natural environment needs to post better evidence than scary photos.

Here is the research, please provide your evidence that Ebola was forced into the (it's spelled) monkey's lungs.
If you can't then you are being untruthful.

Use a Google search, “Nature.com, Canadian Ebola pig study, 2012 “ or follow the link
www.nature.com...

Nature.com, “Infection of all four macaques in an environment, preventing direct contact between the two species and between the macaques themselves, supports the concept of airborne transmission.”
Additionally, here are two more studies that prove Ebola is infectious through airborne contamination.
Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory. The Lancet 346, 1669–1671 (1995).

Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus. Int. J. Exp. Path. 76, 227–236 (1995).

originally posted by: Violater1
Here is the research, please provide your evidence that Ebola was forced into the (it's spelled) monkey's lungs.
If you can't then you are being untruthful.

See my post here (second one on the page): www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm getting tired of posting the same info over and over, but since you suggest I'm untruthful:

Monkies were anaesthetized with ketamine HCI for the aerosol exposure phase of the experiment...each monkey was placed in dorsal recombency with its head extending through a rubber dam...the monkey was placed in a gas tight environment controlled Hazelton chamber...The nebulizer, driven by compressed air at 20PSI generated an aerosol flow rate of 16.5l/min...After a 10 MINUTE EXPOSURE the Hazelton Chamber was flushed with clean air...

--this is literally forcing the virus down the poor monkey's lungs.

Full text available online: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The sad thing is many people are using this kind of science to support that human populations are at risk for the spread of Ebola as an airborne virus. They are spreading disinformation without understanding the problem of ecological validity in the above study.

(Ecological validity = Whether or not the results of an experiment have anything to do with the real world.)