No, the characteristics of the outbreak mirror just about every other outbreak (of Ebola AND Marburg) in the last 40 years. The only difference is that this time, the virus got into some populated areas.
If a tornado sweeps through a few corn fields, the damage is minimal. But if a tornado sweeps through a residential area, the damage and loss of life can be devastating. The difference in these cases is not that tornadoes have changed, but that they appeared in different areas. The Ebola virus is like that.
What you are listring is consensus, not settled science., Consensus is opinion, nothing more. And when these opinions are presented by gov’t employees that risk losing their income and retirement should thy disagree with their boss, these opinions are worth less than what th MSM offers every day.
What I listed is the synopsis of decades of publications on the subject of Ebola, and I have read hundreds of them. It is not a "consensus", and the term "settled science" is rather misleading. No science is ever settled, but when a preponderance of the evidence shows the same thing, that is as close to "settled" as science ever gets.
I also do not know of any case where a scientist is in danger of losing his/her income or retirement benefits by disagreeing with their "boss" (I guess you mean Obama by that). The boss, if he is not a scientist, is being told what the science actually says. If he can't relay that properly, that is a different issue--the scientists did not explain well, the boss did not understand, whatever.
Also, the WHO and the CDC are big Global Warming activists. Yet another “consensus” that is no where near any kind of settled science.
Really? Ebola has what, exactly, to do with "global warming"? In fact, what does any infectious disease have to do with "global warming"? Are you aware that very few, if any, "global warming" advocate scientists work for the WHO or the CDC? People who work for WHO or CDC are scientists--physicians, molecular biologists, epidemiologists, etc.--whose areas of study do not include "global warming."
The CDC is a political organization no different then the Democratic Party, they long ago ceased being a scientific research organization: global warming, gun control, fat lesbians, school lunches; have been occupying them lately, none of which have anything to do with Disease Control.
I would completely agree that the political issues have no business being pushed onto the CDC. Unfortunately, the fact that politicians (especially leftists) use the CDC to try to further their own agendas is really counterproductive and leads to erosion of trust in the CDC's ability to do its mission. However, there are still very good scientists at the CDC--I would not balk at working there myself--and it plays a crucial role in identifying and controlling disease outbreaks all over the country. I suggest reading the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report to get an idea of the disease and health issues that CDC routinely deals with. I read it every week, or I used to, before Ebola came around.
There to date has not been an outbreak that has killed this many this fast in the history of ebola.
This is a new strain and is different as per the real front line folks fighting this, not the political hacks wearing white smocks in the US