(Lancet Oct 25 2014) Ebola control: effect of asymptomatic infection and acquired immunityEvidence suggests that many Ebola infections are asymptomatic, a factor overlooked by recent outbreak summaries and projections. Particularly, results from one post-Ebola outbreak serosurvey1 showed that 71% of seropositive individuals did not have the disease; another study2 reported that 46% of asymptomatic close contacts of patients with Ebola were seropositive. Although asymptomatic infections are unlikely to be infectious, they might confer protective immunity and thus have important epidemiological consequences.
Big snip
Unlikely to be infectious? I don't know about that.
At any rate, it's yet another display of how little we actually know about Ebola Zaire.
Interesting article at link.
It’s surprising how reluctant that so many in the medical community are to admit how little they really know about all the filoviruses and Ebola in particular. They’ve taken past studies and research, made it accepted wisdom and by golly they’re sticking with it sometimes despite contrary information from field laboratories in West Africa.
It strikes me that up until now there has been little actual lab research done on the various strains of Ebola, understandable given it’s lethality and paucity of viable samples and little or no profit at the end of the road. Until the scale of this epidemic became apparent.
Aside from the CDC, USAMRIID, and NIH it’s difficult to locate BSL-4 research labs here. In Europe I know the Pasteur Institute has been involved, Germany has a lab and then...?
How much of the body of published Ebola papers is from direct research? I know, it’s a rhetorical question.