Are Africans more susceptible to die from Ebola?

I think the recent massive Ebola outbreak was caused by a botched vaccine/cure experiment gone awry.

Whether the failure was intentional is debatable.

originally posted by: stirling
Turn it upside down....
Perhaps black skinned people WILL SURVIVE Ebola, far more often than the whiter skinned peoples???
This is very possible.....

Possible, but look at my post before this one.

We will not know for at least 30-50 years because the question itself is so taboo that no one can get funding to research it. No one will even start the research for fear of the repercussions of even asking a taboo question like that one.

So even though the answer might save lives, we will probably never know within our lifetimes because of cultural taboos.

originally posted by: Neocrusader
Why not?
Aids is shown to be more prevalent in blacks as is the link between MMR jab and autism
Add on top suspected population control drugs used in Kenya and indeed throughout Africa and the middle east ( oh and how we cry when some WHO immunisation clinic in Pakistan gets bombed )
So why not
Just sayin

You are correct but due to the reasons I stated in my first post on this thread, the research will not happen for 30-50 years at a minimum

Admitting that genetic differences may exist within inbred populations we call races is so taboo and forbidden to even think about that it will not happen.

It could well be the case that black Africans are less resistant to this disease - plenty of diseases have a racial profile, so it wouldn't unreasonable to assume Ebola having similar is possible. Poor healthcare, a shakey understanding of the disease and problematic burial traditions are probably the true cause of this epidemic - even if a racial profile isn't beyond possibility.

This said, black Africans being susceptible to Ebola isn't evidence of any hostile, human-led design. It stands to reason that a virus that survives by mutation would eventually mutate in a way that preyed on the genetic weakness of the local population.

I think it is just as Farakan says: Aids and and Ebola were developed in labs. The diseases are tools and Africa has been targeted.

a reply to: Xeven

You can't compare a virus to sickle cell which is a genetic disease. And the only reason Africans are more likely to have it is because it came about as a side effect of a genetic mutation that is actually advantageous to Africans. One copy of the sickle cell genes make Africans more resistant to the malaria parasite, but two copies of the gene cause sickle cell. Since the malaria parasite is most commonly found in Africa, Africans are the ones who got the mutation and the ones in whom it is most common and thus the ones most likely to also have sickle cell.

A virus like Ebola is a completely independent thing. So far as I know, there are no genetic markers that completely mark one out for your ethnicity, not even sickle cell as not all Africans even have the one copy of that gene. So it would be very difficult to make the case that this somehow targets Africans or is more deadly. What exactly is it targeting and why would it be worse for them?

No, it's just a case of the demographic who lives in the area and the relative living conditions and medical of the people, not their ethnicity.

I read a post here about the black plague being ebola. If that is indeed true, then Europe has immunities from living through it. I'd love to hear if there's any truth to the above statement.