I guess you missed the part where I said I've already read that paper (several times, in fact). Furthermore, despite your insistence that that paper was about aerosols, it was not.
Of course I quoted Scientific American to you. I will be honest--your level of understanding of the subject that you have repeatedly communicated tells me very strongly that you do not have a PhD, nor do you have the scientific understanding that a PhD trained scientist gains from years of both reading papers and doing research in the lab. You have not demonstrated that you know anything about the basic structure of cells, how viruses replicate, shed, and spread, etc. So I choose a source written at what I perceive is your level of understanding. Don't worry--I read it myself to make sure the information is accurate; I will never link to an article that is factually inaccurate.
The reason I am so fixated on the minute details of transmission is because only an accurate understanding of transmission characteristics allows for the proper infection control measures to be implemented. This outbreak is not going to be stopped by people becoming hysterical over supposed aerosol transmission--it will be stopped by understanding what DOES spread the virus, and taking steps to stop those chains of transmission.
Whom to believe: an AP reporter, a politician, a political appointee or a research virologist? I don't find that a difficult choice.
Where do you think the reporter, politician, and political appointee get their information? They get that information from the people who actually do the research--from people whose education, training, and experience is similar to mine. If they cannot relay the information accurately, it is because they don't have the educational background to really understand what the researchers are trying to tell them.
I just realized that you were responding to post 2147. I thought you were responding to post 2178. My mistake.
I will be honest--your level of understanding of the subject that you have repeatedly communicated tells me very strongly that you do not have a PhD, nor do you have the scientific understanding that a PhD trained scientist gains from years of both reading papers and doing research in the lab. You have not demonstrated that you know anything about the basic structure of cells, how viruses replicate, shed, and spread, etc. So I choose a source written at what I perceive is your level of understanding.
Ah, the insult dodge. It won't work. Please provide a citation to support your assertion that Ebola cannot infect ciliated epithelial cells.
Odd, you've yet to dispute anything I've written or posted regarding the viral structure, function, etc. If I'm so woefully ignorant surely you can provide examples of my errors. Our first disagreement arose from my assertion that the epidemiological definition of "airborne" differs significantly from the general public's definition and the denial of any possibility of aerosol and droplet vectors is misleading the public, however well-intentioned or technically accurate.
If you are who you say you are (I have no way of verifying nor do I expect you to post personal information to do so), I'm not surprised that you cannot see outside your box to how the general public interprets what is coming out of the CDC/WHO/et al. Every scientist I've worked with has the same problem. That's why they hire people like me. They have the self-awareness to recognize their own blind spots and most aren't so supercilious they believe that anyone without their CV is automatically stupid.
The reason I am so fixated on the minute details of transmission is because only an accurate understanding of transmission characteristics allows for the proper infection control measures to be implemented. This outbreak is not going to be stopped by people becoming hysterical over supposed aerosol transmission--it will be stopped by understanding what DOES spread the virus, and taking steps to stop those chains of transmission.
Proven infection control measures aren't working. Some of that is due to the ignorance of the population, some due to the population densities of the infected areas, some due to the refusal to implement demonstrably effective yet politically unpopular controls like quarantines, some due to the unknowns regarding this particular pathogen. It is those unknowns that concern me and have since the beginning. There's nothing "hysterical" in my posts because I'm not hysterical. Concerned? Absolutely. I have no reason to believe that Ebola cannot spread throughout the world in very little time. In fact I have every reason to think it will. I vividly recall in the early days of HIV/AIDS claims by many authorities that GRID could not become a serious health issue in "developed countries." I recall the assertions that it was contained in the homosexual communities by definition so no quarantine was necessary. Of course the meme inverted to "everyone is at risk" once history demonstrated the errors of the early meme and the political element hit full stride. I see the same phenomenon occurring now. Given the specifics of the pathogen and the fact that one can be infected with Ebola without engaging in very specific sexual/drug activities, the recurring meme gives me pause.
As I wrote earlier, in a year we will have loads of data regarding transmission vectors. I think we'll see far easier H2H transmission than current dogma admits. Time will tell.
In an earlier post you defended the deflections performed by the scientists at the Congressional hearing by asserting that much is unknown about this virus and its transmission vectors, therefore the scientists couldn't provide the requested information and hence provided what little they could without admitting they just don't know. You then turn around and insist that you know enough to assure the world that only direct physical contact with blood/vomit/etc. will result in H2H Ebola viral transfer (though to give credit where due you did express some concern about the persistence of the virus in semen.) Which is it? Since you present yourself as the authority on the subject, please educate the rest of us on all possible transmission vectors. Perhaps you should offer to update the Congress since they didn't get the information regarding fomites from the scientists present.
Again, please provide a cite for your claim that Ebola cannot infect ciliated epithelial cells. Thanks in advance.