First diagnosed case of Ebola in the U.S. *Patient dies*

[BrAinPaiNt]

They are saying they don't know. And it's misleading saying that it's not airborne like what is being said now. Knowing between the two results in a big difference in perception.

Would you feel safe walking into a room with an Ebola infected person coughing and sneezing?

They are saying it is unlikely and has not happened before and anything Could happen but again unlikely.

Articles and news shows starting out with Ebola is airborne is misleading and playing into fear I order to get ratings and clicks. Some are playing or gearing up the fear for other reasons as well but we are not allowed to go into that discussion due to board rules.

I have yet to read our entire article or see one show from no biased site ( conspiracy) that says the Ebola has a remotely good chance of going airborne for humans.

I have seen too many conspiracy nutters sites or on TV ginning up the fear and try g to act like it is already airborne and everyone is lying about it.

 

[BlindFaith]

They are saying it is unlikely and has not happened before and anything Could happen but again unlikely.

Articles and news shows starting out with Ebola is airborne is misleading and playing into fear I order to get ratings and clicks. Some are playing or gearing up the fear for other reasons as well but we are not allowed to go into that discussion due to board rules.

I have yet to read our entire article or see one show from no biased site ( conspiracy) that says the Ebola has a remotely good chance of going airborne for humans.

I have seen too many conspiracy nutters sites or on TV ginning up the fear and try g to act like it is already airborne and everyone is lying about it.

These quotes aren't from conspiracists. They are from the leading scientists researching Ebola. And they ALL say there is, at the very least, a remotely good chance of it going airborne or even possibly currently able to be transmitted airborne today.

Dr. C.J. Peters - Battled a 1989 outbreak of the virus
Dr. Philip K. Russell - A virologist who oversaw Ebola research while heading the U.S. Army's Medical Research and Development Command
Charles L. Bailey - Virus researcher supervised the government's response to an outbreak of Ebola In late 1989

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a virologist who oversaw Ebola research while heading the U.S. Army's Medical Research and Development Command, and who later led the government's massive stockpiling of smallpox vaccine after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also said much was still to be learned. "Being dogmatic is, I think, ill-advised, because there are too many unknowns here."

Finally, some also question the official assertion that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air. In late 1989, virus researcher Charles L. Bailey supervised the government's response to an outbreak of Ebola among several dozen rhesus monkeys housed for research in Reston, Va., a suburb of Washington.

What Bailey learned from the episode informs his suspicion that the current strain of Ebola afflicting humans might be spread through tiny liquid droplets propelled into the air by coughing or sneezing.

"We know for a fact that the virus occurs in sputum and no one has ever done a study [disproving that] coughing or sneezing is a viable means of transmitting," he said. Unqualified assurances that Ebola is not spread through the air, Bailey said, are "misleading."

Peters, whose CDC team studied cases from 27 households that emerged during a 1995 Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo, said that while most could be attributed to contact with infected late-stage patients or their bodily fluids, "some" infections may have occurred via "aerosol transmission."

Skinner of the CDC, who cited the Peters-led study as the most extensive of Ebola's transmissibility, said that while the evidence "is really overwhelming" that people are most at risk when they touch either those who are sick or such a person's vomit, blood or diarrhea, "we can never say never" about spread through close-range coughing or sneezing.

"I'm not going to sit here and say that if a person who is highly viremic … were to sneeze or cough right in the face of somebody who wasn't protected, that we wouldn't have a transmission," Skinner said.

Peters, Russell and Bailey, who in 1989 was deputy commander for research of the Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, in Frederick, Md., said the primates in Reston had appeared to spread Ebola to other monkeys through their breath.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

NONE of them you listed said there was a good chance it would go airborne or that it has gone airborne. NONE

the closest you have in those quotes is some guy who said "some" "MAY HAVE" ...however even in that I have yet to see ONE hard documented case of airborne ebola in humans.

These are just scientist and doctors covering their backs by saying..."We can never say never".

The problem with those quotes however is when the media get a hold of them, take them out of context, throw out a quote or two that sounds like it is airborne (in humans without saying humans) and use it as a headline to garner clicks or viewers.

Also the conspiracy nutters take those quotes and say...hey this guy says never say never, this doc said it could have been, this doc says between monkeys or pigs...and fly with that to make it so the CDC is lying and not wanting to tell the public that the ebola is Airborne.

Find me CONCRETE proof that the EBOLA virus HAS been airborne in Humans....you won't because you cant. Not yet because it has not happened and the chances of it happening are slim...anything COULD happen, but the odds are against it now and it is not a GOOD chance of it at this point. It is a never say never situation at this point.

 

[BlindFaith]

NONE of them you listed said there was a good chance it would go airborne or that it has gone airborne. NONE

the closest you have in those quotes is some guy who said "some" "MAY HAVE" ...however even in that I have yet to see ONE hard documented case of airborne ebola in humans.

These are just scientist and doctors covering their backs by saying..."We can never say never".

The problem with those quotes however is when the media get a hold of them, take them out of context, throw out a quote or two that sounds like it is airborne (in humans without saying humans) and use it as a headline to garner clicks or viewers.

Also the conspiracy nutters take those quotes and say...hey this guy says never say never, this doc said it could have been, this doc says between monkeys or pigs...and fly with that to make it so the CDC is lying and not wanting to tell the public that the ebola is Airborne.

Find me CONCRETE proof that the EBOLA virus HAS been airborne in Humans....you won't because you cant. Not yet because it has not happened and the chances of it happening are slim...anything COULD happen, but the odds are against it now and it is not a GOOD chance of it at this point. It is a never say never situation at this point.

Sure, find someone with Ebola and sit in the room with them as they cough and sneeze. Let me know if you get it.

Those kinds of tests aren't practical, right? Its all speculation and reliant on information gathered from the one who has it. How do they know exactly how they got it? Do they know if it was something they touched, ate, breathed?

What the experts are saying is that to simply go around telling everyone that it CAN'T be transmitted airborne is misleading. They simply don't know yet. And even the head of the CDC has said that it is possible that if someone with Ebola coughs or sneezes in your face, it's possible to get it. That is airborne. That means not only do you have to take precautions against TOUCHING someone, or anything they have touched, but also very possibly staying beyond a certain area and to be properly protected against BREATHING in or getting any saliva in your mouth, eyes, nose etc.

And enough of the conspiracy crap. That's not what this is about. It's about making people aware that it's at least possible that you can get it other than touching someone or eating a dead monkey.

And at the very least, to make people aware that you can get it from touching ANYTHING that an infected person has touched for up 4 days after. That is a far more serious threat than simply worrying about not touching someone.

 

[BlindFaith]

Another non conspiracy link: University of Minnesota
Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact."

These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.

Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site. The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse consequences far beyond the initial infection site.

The potential for transmission via inhalation of aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.

 

[burmafrd]

blindfaith needs his tinfoil replaced

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Another non conspiracy link: University of Minnesota
Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact."

These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.

Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site. The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse consequences far beyond the initial infection site.

The potential for transmission via inhalation of aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.

Yet ANOTHER article that does not say it has happened or is even likely to happen... Just that you can never say never.

Still waiting for concrete proof that eye Ebola is airborne for humans.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sure, find someone with Ebola and sit in the room with them as they cough and sneeze. Let me know if you get it.

Those kinds of tests aren't practical, right? Its all speculation and reliant on information gathered from the one who has it. How do they know exactly how they got it? Do they know if it was something they touched, ate, breathed?

What the experts are saying is that to simply go around telling everyone that it CAN'T be transmitted airborne is misleading. They simply don't know yet. And even the head of the CDC has said that it is possible that if someone with Ebola coughs or sneezes in your face, it's possible to get it. That is airborne. That means not only do you have to take precautions against TOUCHING someone, or anything they have touched, but also very possibly staying beyond a certain area and to be properly protected against BREATHING in or getting any saliva in your mouth, eyes, nose etc.

And enough of the conspiracy crap. That's not what this is about. It's about making people aware that it's at least possible that you can get it other than touching someone or eating a dead monkey.

And at the very least, to make people aware that you can get it from touching ANYTHING that an infected person has touched for up 4 days after. That is a far more serious threat than simply worrying about not touching someone.

At this point it is NOT airborne for humans.

 

[maxdallasfan]

I love when a new yahoo headline pops up once a month saying that this MAY cause that, and this supplement MAY prevent this, and doing this MAY help with that.

It's all BS. The word MAY is short for we have no effn idea, but we'll throw it out there to see if it sticks.

Drives me nuts!

 

[CashMan]

At this point it is NOT airborne for humans.

But it could be, you just don't know!


This just in.....EVERYONE who drink water in their life, may die, at some point in their life.

 

[joseephuss]

What the experts are saying is that to simply go around telling everyone that it CAN'T be transmitted airborne is misleading. They simply don't know yet. And even the head of the CDC has said that it is possible that if someone with Ebola coughs or sneezes in your face, it's possible to get it. That is airborne. That means not only do you have to take precautions against TOUCHING someone, or anything they have touched, but also very possibly staying beyond a certain area and to be properly protected against BREATHING in or getting any saliva in your mouth, eyes, nose etc.

I don't think that is the definition of airborne. That is more direct contact.

 

[BlindFaith]

I don't think that is the definition of airborne. That is more direct contact.

airborne infection one that is contracted by inhalation of microorganisms or spores suspended in air on water droplets or dust particles.
droplet infection infection due to inhalation of respiratory pathogens suspended on liquid particles exhaled by someone already infected (dropletnuclei) .

 

[BlindFaith]

At this point it is NOT airborne for humans.

OK Doc

 

[CashMan]

OK Doc

If this were "Airborne", it probably would be out of control at this point. Since, it is not, I do not buy the media hypestorm.

You keep posting quotes, that say maybe this maybe that. People say that, to give them an out. If they would say, there is no way, this is going to happen, then it does, they probably wouldn't be taken seriously, in the medical community or worse, not be able to practice medicine.

 

[EST_1986]

You have to be completely looney to think Ebola is airborne or will be airborne.

 

[EST_1986]

airborne infection one that is contracted by inhalation of microorganisms or spores suspended in air on water droplets or dust particles.
droplet infection infection due to inhalation of respiratory pathogens suspended on liquid particles exhaled by someone already infected (dropletnuclei) .

Ebola is not airborne it would effect more people and spread way more rapidly. Get off Facebook.

 

[joseephuss]

airborne infection one that is contracted by inhalation of microorganisms or spores suspended in air on water droplets or dust particles.
droplet infection infection due to inhalation of respiratory pathogens suspended on liquid particles exhaled by someone already infected (dropletnuclei) .

As I said, your example does not meet the definition of airborne. Look at the example you gave of someone sneezing or coughing directly on a person and compare that to the definition of airborne infection that you just provided. It isn't the same.

 

[BlindFaith]

If this were "Airborne", it probably would be out of control at this point. Since, it is not, I do not buy the media hypestorm.

You keep posting quotes, that say maybe this maybe that. People say that, to give them an out. If they would say, there is no way, this is going to happen, then it does, they probably wouldn't be taken seriously, in the medical community or worse, not be able to practice medicine.

Do you think it's under control now in Africa? Really???

 

[BlindFaith]

I'm done with this. Believe what you want.

 

[MonsterD]

I'm done with this. Believe what you want.

Lol I certainly don't believe anything about someone brushes a rail and 4 days later someone else contacts it and they get Ebola. Within 3 hours of ebola outside of the body slim chances but yes if they put it in their mouths or whatever.