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.

 

Kaci Hickox the nurse that won't be quarantined is linked to the CDC!

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The more I read on the EIS that until now it was something I no even I was awared off, Thanks to you,

The more I see that is more than meet the eyes, then put Ms. nagging nurse information and her defiant, the timing, the news, and there you have it a conspiracy in the making.

I know something is not right about all this, I hope I am wrong.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Actually, a very broad line. One is education, the other is public relations.


But the media is aimed at the public, I don't see how you could receive training in media of any type that doesn't relate to how those viewing it will perceice what is viewed.


I'd say education is sorely needed.


I heartily agree, here is some education on the roots of the EIS program:


The EIS was the brainchild of Dr. Alexander D. Langmuir, chief epidemiologist at the Communicable Disease Center (later renamed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) following his recruitment from a faculty position at Johns Hopkins University in 1949.

...

After initial attempts to fund this training program failed, Dr. Langmuir changed his tack and argued that the United States needed a trained cadre of epidemiologists who could be available to detect and respond to a clandestine biologic attack, presumably by the Soviet bloc [2]. Congress responded with funding for the new program, and the first class of 22 trainees was enrolled in July of 1951. Although the stated rationale for the program was biodefense, Dr. Langmuir later wrote, “The ultimate objective of this program is to promote a wider understanding and appreciation of epidemiologic approaches to the problem of disease control in war and peace” [1].


The Epidemic Intelligence Service: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Disease Detectives
Douglas H. Hamilton, MD, PhD


So it didn't get funding until it's founder repackaged it, during the cold war mind you, in light of it's use against germ warfare, to use a colloquialism.
edit on 30-10-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Sounds like the core of her argument is that of science.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The issue and the subject is big, but I think is growing to a point that it can eat all of us out. Thanks for the information, has been very enlightening.



Now I see Ms. Hickox in a brand new way.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Occurs she is, is just like CDC science, what else, I guess we most trust our CDC guidelines those of the government and let live happy, nothing to see here, just us hysterical conspirators.

She is a hero.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
But the media is aimed at the public, I don't see how you could receive training in media of any type that doesn't relate to how those viewing it will perceice what is viewed.

It's rather obvious/easy. Being trained in how to educate the media would be specific to being able to explain the complexities of various issues in a way that the average person can understand. It's an important component of any group that has their own "internal language" such as that of medical professionals.




here is some education on the roots of the EIS program

I'm familiar with the program from the research we did leading up to the Ebola Madness NLBS episode. Some from that branch are the people who first identified and tracked Ebola.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
I guess we most trust our CDC guidelines


Why wouldn't we? It seems they've worked well up until the point the media went mad with distortion and junk science.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

She may be asymptomatic now, but what if she's out galavanting around when the fever hits and sneezes on a kid?

I think it's completely reasonable to ask someone to stay home for 21 days. I didn't like the initial response of locking her in a bubble. She can be comfortable and cautious at the same time.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
If this wench and her employment with the CDC is a "good" thing, why is the MSM not telling the public about it?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
www.cdc.gov...

www.cdc.gov...

www.cdc.gov...

Seems to me the CDC is coming around to pretty close to what the states are implementing.

Scientifically speaking, of course. Read carefully. Especially that last link.

Enjoy.

In addition, there are some older links where the CDC recommended exactly what the states are doing. I don't have the will to seek them out, but they have been posted here before in more than one thread.

ETA: People who haven't closely followed this should really do some research before just forming opinions from what is convenient to their comfort level or level of knowledge and not fall for the "let science decide" spin coming from those who 1.) are annoyed that the states acted faster than the fed, 2.) had pressure upon them for the "humanitarian" agenda and policy people, and 3.) are coming around to pretty much the same line of thinking anyway.


edit on 10/30/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
She may be asymptomatic now, but what if she's out galavanting around when the fever hits and sneezes on a kid?

Nothing.

There's no science or anything rational that indicates someone will be contagious before their symptoms are interfering with their mobility. From the research I've done, even a high fever -- with no other symptoms -- isn't consider much of a risk.

Thomas Duncan had a very high fever, in addition to other symptoms, the night before he went to the hospital the second time. His fiancé was intimately close to him that night, caring for what seemed to be the flu… she did not contract ebola.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, from that last link:

An individual could be reasonably believed to be infected if he or she displays the signs and symptoms of the quarantinable communicable disease of concern and there is some reason to believe that an exposure had occurred.

She's showing no symptoms.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeultra
If this wench and her...

Seriously?

DId I suddenly stumble into YouTube or Facebook?

Is this idiotic name calling what ATS is turning into?

How embarrassing.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, from that last link:

An individual could be reasonably believed to be infected if he or she displays the signs and symptoms of the quarantinable communicable disease of concern and there is some reason to believe that an exposure had occurred.

She's showing no symptoms.
'

Oh...keep reading. Particular attention to the charts at the last link.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Oh...keep reading. Particular attention to the charts at the last link.


Yes? I see "no action needed" and/or "No restrictions on travel, work, public" this this case. What am I missing?
edit on 30-10-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Oh...keep reading. Particular attention to the charts at the last link.


Yes? I see "no action needed" and/or "No restrictions on travel, work, public" this this case. What am I missing?


Look at the chart in the last link,

Interim U.S. Guidance for Monitoring and Movement of Persons with Potential Ebola Virus Exposure

under the "some risk" portion, asymptomatic.


The public health authority, based on a specific assessment of the individual’s situation, will determine whether additional restrictions are appropriate, including:
Controlled movement: exclusion from long-distance commercial conveyances (aircraft, ship, train, bus) or local public conveyances (e.g., bus, subway)
Exclusion from public places (e.g., shopping centers, movie theaters), and congregate gatherings
Exclusion from workplaces for the duration of a public health order, unless approved by the state or local health department (telework is permitted)
Non-congregate public activities while maintaining a 3-foot distance from others may be permitted (e.g., jogging in a park)
Other activities should be assessed as needs and circumstances change to determine whether these activities may be undertaken
Any travel will be coordinated with public health authorities to ensure uninterrupted direct active monitoring
Federal public health travel restrictions (Do Not Board) may be implemented based on an assessment of the particular circumstance
For travelers arriving in the United States, implementation of federal public health travel restrictions would occur after the traveler reaches the final destination of the itinerary



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Hmm. I was under the impression that once symptomatic they were contagious.

So do you feel this is a slippery slope type situation? Just plain old hysteria? To me it seems that if there is even a slight risk (and I get that you're saying there isn't) staying home for 21 days seems reasonable. Are you concerned that if she is forced to anyone who is even suspected of coming into contact with another victim will be automatically quarantined?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'm not sure I would call it a "CDC Agenda" however the CDC has already proven they have made some seriously bad calls and gave incorrect guidance on protective gear.

Their initial guidelines for protective gear clearly showed skin exposed while in there own laboratories they wear full hazmat suits while handling just the test tubes. We now know that having skin exposed in anyway to a patient with a high viral load of Ebola will in fact leave you at a high risk of contracting the disease. This is how Nina and Amber contracted it while caring for Duncan and wearing the CDC recommended protective gear.

The CDC is not infallible and their inconsistency and errors have left many to doubt their credibility and integrity on this matter.

The nurse was in Africa treating Ebola patients, while I respect her wanting to protect her rights and expressing her concerns with the quarantine. I do think the general public also has a right to be concerned about doctors and nurses who come back from treating Ebola patients and walking about unknowingly infected (ie. Dr. Spencer).

I support healthcare workers taking a stand. If it wasn't for the nurses in Dallas speaking out and the Nurses Union hitting the TV channels hard we may not of know how poorly Duncans case was handled by the Dallas hospital and how much risk the nurses were being exposed to.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking out and taking a stand, however there is something inherently silly with not understanding you need to stay at home and watch TV for 21 days since you've had high-risk contact with Ebola patients...
edit on 30-10-2014 by whoreallyknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
It's more embarrassing how you avoid answering my question. Why is the MSM not reporting on your "hero" nurse's true employer?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Re: Deconstructing Disinformation

It seems to me that even the CDC's new interim guidelines are now coming around more to what the states are doing.

And I will say again, these guidelines were pretty much their guidelines to begin, all along, but they got overlooked in this media fiasco with this nurse and overlooked by very same CDC bureaucrats who were either incompentent and not familiar with their own standards and policies or just go all glitzed out by dealing with the high level politics and agendas and media exposure that it brought with it, that they forgot to do their jobs, and even forgot to use common sense.

In the Spanish flu epidemic, check out some of the stories and research online to see what some cities in the U.S. did to DRAMATICALLY lower their mortality rates. You got it. quarantine.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join