Angolans die from Ebola-like bug

"At least 96 people have died in the past five months in Angola after an outbreak of a haemorrhagic fever in the north, caused by the Marburg virus.
The World Health Organization says the disease, which has particularly affected children under five years old, is from the Ebola family.

The symptoms, similar to Ebola, include vomiting, bloody discharge and fever.

Correspondents say Angola's health infrastructure is in tatters after a 27-year civil war, which ended in 2002.

The nature of the outbreak was discovered after blood samples were sent to the US for analysis.

The Marburg disease, which was first recognised in 1967, affects humans and primates.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Looks like someone "tested" another strain of ebola. Weponization must be close for someone. The key wording is "over five months" ebola normaly kills everyone very quickly in a few days or weeks, not over "months". This was a bio-war test..............

[edit on 25-3-2005 by DrHoracid]

"Bio-war test..." Pffftt... Get back to earth plz!

So they have been testing this new virus for 40 years?

Its just an epedemic which has probably spawned with some primates.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
"Bio-war test..." Pffftt... Get back to earth plz!

So they have been testing this new virus for 40 years?

Its just an epedemic which has probably spawned with some primates.

Look ebola is so deadly that is kills everything that comes into contact with it.....everything. On that basis it should have killed itself off many, many, times. So with no "host" how does it keep coming back? Because it is a bio-war virus being tested.............

Look ebola is so deadly that is kills everything that comes into contact with it.....everything. On that basis it should have killed itself off many, many, times. So with no "host" how does it keep coming back? Because it is a bio-war virus being tested.............

Dr, for once i agree with you. You have a valid point there. Why/how would a virus survive, if it kills off its hosts so quickly? I could understand it killing in maybe a few days, or a week, but Ebola usually kills in 24 hours (ish).

Originally posted by stumason


Dr, for once i agree with you. You have a valid point there. Why/how would a virus survive, if it kills off its hosts so quickly? I could understand it killing in maybe a few days, or a week, but Ebola usually kills in 24 hours (ish).

To me the key phrase here is ebola-like? As if it is a natural "mutation" or some kind. How can something so deadly mutate in a dead host? Possible but not probable.

Maybe with all the problems with African continent Aids,war,faming etc etc etc we should seriously concider Nuking them as they are the cause of major health threats and really don`t provide much in return to mankind.


Laying on floor now ready for all the negative resposes to come and slap me in the face for this one ;p

This was not a Bioweapon test.

First, the Marburg virus is called ''Ebola-like' because it is the only other virus, with the four strains of Ebola, in the Filovirus family. It is not a mutation of Ebola, just one that has similar effects as they both create hemorrhagic fever symptoms and comes from the same family.

Second, it has not killed itself off because we do not know what the original host of Ebola is. Ebola is spread by bodily fluids, usually from primate to human and human to human. However, the primate is not the original host. The virus happily hides SOMEWHERE ELSE until it begins the cycle mentioned above.

Third, Ebola does not kill everything it comes into contact with, Mortality rates can be as high as 90%, but that has mainly been due to bad sanitary conditions during treatment of the virus. Marburg has only a 25% mortality rate. This then highlights the spread of Marburg in Angola, where in the article quoted it states that their health system is in tatters. An ideal situation for something easily spread to be transmitted to other patients.

Look at bmj.bmjjournals.com... for some more information on Ebola and Marburg. Research is key when making such statements as 'bio-weapons test'!

And Weirdo? Oh dear, oh dear. What a well thought out and intelligent reply! Did you write it all yourself?

Originally posted by DrHoracid

To me the key phrase here is ebola-like? As if it is a natural "mutation" or some kind. How can something so deadly mutate in a dead host? Possible but not probable.

...Think of the bacterial "Super Bugs" that have evolved in North America - most now mutate into highly contagious and lethal forms on exposure to antibiotics inside the host's body.

"Doctors know C. difficile flourish after patients take certain antibiotics. Now it seems any antibiotic can bring on the disease. ..."Something happened 18 to 24 months ago, ..." said Dr. Mark Miller, chief of infectious diseases at Montreal's Jewish General Hospital."
Clostridium difficile FAQs

Obviously, ebola is a microbe that can survive in the external environment without a host - it likely mutated rapidly in response to new 'biochemical conditions' inside a 'new' host's body.


...We have changed our world, biochemically and fundamentally - inside our own bodies AND in the environment - and microbes are adapting to this new world way faster than we are. Bioterrorists are NOT required - "nature" is doing it without any help at all. ...This and other information regarding microbial mutation is common scientific knowledge - especially to microbiologists.


For a basic overview of microbial evolution and adaptation, see:

Paul Ewald: Infectious Disease and the Evolution of Virulence

...Ewald does great work on infectious diseases, and is known for his description of how cholera mutates rapidly in response to changing conditions - and thus, maintains its ability to spread. ...The same processes and "survival strategies" are available to other microbes.

.

Originally posted by SunChaser
This was not a Bioweapon test.
Research is key when making such statements as 'bio-weapons test'!

And Weirdo? Oh dear, oh dear. What a well thought out and intelligent reply! Did you write it all yourself?

Both Marburg and Ebola do not have naturally occurring DNA strands. The mortality rate is 100% for ebola including doctors and nurses that treat the sick. The 50-90% mortality rates indicated in the report is in the first 100 hours of onset. Death is violent and horrible. Ebola is the virus the "scorched ground" option was invented for, incineration of the infected area in mass. Marburg is a less deadly strain of the same virus. I would suggest you do your own research there solar dude.......

Excuse me Doctor, I have done my research.

Both Marburg and Ebola do not have naturally occurring DNA strands.

Where did you learn this? Ebola has been seen to naturally occur in several species of Primates, including Gorillas and Chimpanzees.

The mortality rate is 100% for ebola including doctors and nurses that treat the sick. The 50-90% mortality rates indicated in the report is in the first 100 hours of onset.

Where does it state this in the report? The figures for the 1976 outbreak in Zaire are 318 confirmed cases with 290 dead. Is that 100%? Plus, the average time from onset to death or survival is 10 days, not 100 hours. Oh, and if everyone dies who contracts Ebola, who the hell are these guys? www.ifrc.org...

Most Biochemists state that Ebola is not that likely to be used as a weapon due to the ease of containing an outbreak. Ebola victims are isolated and needles are sterilized, job done. The virus is spread only by fluids remember!
Also, I am aware that Marburg is in the same family as Ebola and not a 'mutation'...it is you that said it was!

For more research that is accurate try: biochemistry.musc.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> biochemistry.musc.edu...

Perhaps if you could provide evidence of what you are saying it may be easier to believe.

And Weirdo? Oh dear, oh dear. What a well thought out and intelligent reply! Did you write it all yourself?

No actually l had some help.Please if you think it is a little extreme maybe you should visit many of the Africa continent countries.A few of interest would be the Ivory Coast the life expectance of both Males and Females is 41 years.The country is currently divided by via religion and stability is due to the presence of the UN.Angola has the lowest life expectance of 39 years men,41 women and is one of the poorest countries in Africa.Many Angolans depend on Aid to survive.After 16 years of violance and 300,000 lives lost they had a period of peace and elections followed which resulted in Unita rejecting the result and started the war again which resulted in another 100.000 deaths.A peace accord was signed in 1994 which broken down again in 1999 when peace keepers were withdraw for safety reasons.After the death of the Unita lead in 2002 another peace was declared to which is still in force.The man proplem today is that much of the general population is heavly armed which is resulting in murders that are not being investigated.Show l wouldn`t suggest you id yourselve as a westerner if you are brave/stupid enought to vist there!!!!
One of the most stable countries is Benin.But there life expectance is still low at 48 years male 53 years female.While Benin has seen economic growth over the past few years,it remains one of the worlds poorest countries really heavly on Nigeria.Botswana is also stable politically it is relatively fee of corruption and has a good human rights record.The economic growth and wealth generated thanks to the Diamond industry.Foreign investment has lead to better transport routes which has aided the stread of HIV- Aids.The life expectance of a male is 39yrs and a female is 40yrs.Un figures state that 1 in 3 adults are infected with HIV or have developed AIDS.Burkin Faso is a poor country even by West African standards thans to many military coups and drought.There are concerns caused by neighbouring Ivory Coast and an war is pretty near.It also has one of the worlds worst human right records,again if you plan to visit l would take a few hundred well trained troops with you.Chad rich in Gold and Urinium is Africa 5 largest country suffers from inadequate infrastructure and simmering internal conflict.Poverty is rife and health ansd social conditions are poor even by African standards.Life expectance is 44yrs Male 46yrs female.Eithiopia well we all know about the many famines and droughts.Many Eithiopians rely on food aid.In 2004 a programme began to move 2 Million people away from the Arid highlands of the East as a lasting solution to the food shortages.How can 2 Million people not get it into there heads if it don`t rain nothing will grow but l guess it is easier to suvive from food aid than return to working to survive.My point is obvious that Africa has a problem with it`s people,there either fight for power and money starving there people and they don`t do anything about it or when they are well of economically they dying from Aidsand still don`t grasp what it is or how to prevent it.Therefore they contribute nothing to the world about from pain suffering and money

Weirdo,

Your entire post gave a sad story of a continent ravaged by apartheid. However you gave no reasons why they should be 'nuked'. I'm not even going to bother listing the reasons you are so wrong.

Originally posted by SunChaser
Weirdo,

Your entire post gave a sad story of a continent ravaged by apartheid. However you gave no reasons why they should be 'nuked'. I'm not even going to bother listing the reasons you are so wrong.

Simple they are dying when there poor.There diying when there rich.They have an inability to solve there own problems without resulting in corruption/violence.They are a drain on the world fragile economies.If countries such as China Russia Iran Korea would become the next super powers do you think they would send the kinds of Aid America UK Europe would send now.Would the UN be strong enough to force these countries to send Aid.Better to end there suffering than to delay there inevitable short miserable lives than to prolong it.

"The first recorded human Ebola outbreaks (Yambuku, Zaire, 1976; Nzara, Sudan, 1976 and 1979; Tandala, Zaire, 1977) occurred abruptly, from an unidentified source, with subsequent person-to-person spread (1,2,5,6). No trace of the virus was initially found in wild animals close to the outbreaks (7–9). In 1989, for the first time, a nonhuman primate outbreak due to a new subtype of Ebola virus, Ebola subtype Reston, occurred in a colony of Macaca fascicularis in a quarantine facility in Reston, Virginia, USA, after the introduction of monkeys from the Philippines (10). "

From the CDC............note the "occurred abruptly, from an unidentified source," and there were no outbreaks in wild animals near the episode.

The there was an outbreak in Virginia. Not far from Fort Detrick maryland. The army's bio-research center. Coincidence? No Bio-warfare............

Ebola was introduced into the environment by someone, the real question is who?

[edit on 28-3-2005 by DrHoracid]

It is up to 120 according to this source.

China View Article

Doctor,

The reference to an unidentified source, means that they didn't know what ANIMAL it came from. Further more, it could also reference that scientists are still unaware exactly where Ebola occurs in nature.

The Reston strain does not affect humans, only primates. What I will admit is odd is that how Monkeys from the Phillipines managed to get a virus up until that point had only been found in Africa. However, this strain is not harmful to us, so why would anyone bother?

But I still don't think that it is for Bio-warfare, there are so many other more effective and less easy to deal with virus/bacteria out there to bother with Ebola. Especially as they can't even find out where it comes from! You ask the question WHO is introducing it, but I would ask WHY would someone introduce it!

Also, thanks, I quite like Solar Dude!

[edit on 28-3-2005 by SunChaser]

Originally posted by SunChaser
What I will admit is odd is that how Monkeys from the Phillipines managed to get a virus up until that point had only been found in Africa. However, this strain is not harmful to us, so why would anyone bother?

But I still don't think that it is for Bio-warfare, there are so many other more effective and less easy to deal with virus/bacteria out there to bother with Ebola. Especially as they can't even find out where it comes from! You ask the question WHO is introducing it, but I would ask WHY would someone introduce it!

Also, thanks, I quite like Solar Dude!

[edit on 28-3-2005 by SunChaser]

Hey glade you like the "Acidisim" there sunchaser

Now, do you not find it questionable that so many "primate" virus have crossed over since "Stanleyville" horror happened?

Again, these are field tests of biowar agents to find how "effective" they are on humans.