Nope. Totally true with dogs. They are not symptomatic, but can carry and transmit the virus.
PLEASE read through, and inform more FReepres or your acquaintances
By "CDC studies", the UK source only referenced the 2001/2002 studies. If you include the 2005 CDC research Jake Tapper used for his tweet citing, I have shown in the following copy/paste comment I posted elsewhere that CDC did not PROVE that dogs are Ebola viral vectors, in fact this paper clearly showed dogs are not Ebola virus carriers.
Unless there are further follow up stud(ies) after this 2005 paper, the case for dogs as Ebola viral vector is not as clear cut.The authors concluded that (1) dogs were infected with Ebola virus in the affected area where there was Ebola outbreak, developed the viral specific antigen (IgG), which is measured in this study.
However, (2) dogs do not develop Ebola symptoms (i.e., asymptomatic), none of the dogs tested showed presence of viral DNA (via PCR testing), and more importantly, nor viral particles can be isolated in the test serum.
In order to be a viral vector, you need to have viral particles accumulated to a certain amount in order to infect other animal/species.
This is the part that’s a huge “Assumption” in this paper -
(excerpt)“Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a short period before virus clearance, as observed experimentally in other animals.” (end excerpt)
Thus CDC and these authors need to do the follow-up study to confirm this. This is where online community can help out in digging out more Ebola studies.
I haven't read through the parts about rhesus monkeys, so will refrain from commenting with regards to airborne or not.
41 posted on 10/14/2014 12:32:17 PM by Sir Napsalot
Since dogs are asymptomatic, they *might* catch a low-level disease, but they most likely are NOT contagious. Anyway, I’m glad this dog was put into quarantine, and not killed like the dog in Spain was.