Posted on 10/18/2014 7:04:40 AM PDT by RummyChick
https://www.scribd.com/doc/243228798/US-Army-Medical-Management-Of-Biological-Casualties-Handbook-USAMRIID-BlueBook-7th-Edition-Sep-2011-1
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The USAMRIID BlueBook does NOT confirm natural aerosol transmission of Ebola virus. The fact that infection can occur in a highly artificial laboratory environment using mechanically generated aerosols sprayed directly into animals’ faces does NOT establish that aerosols can be generated in the respiratory tract during the course of a natural infection. Some hospital procedures can generate aerosols or droplets (physician colleagues tell me that droplets are generated, not aerosols)—but, again, that is not something that we would ever see outside of a health care facility.
**IF** you happened to be sitting on a bus next to someone with Ebola, and **IF** that person happened to sneeze on you (Ebola does not cause sneezing, but something else could make them sneeze) and **IF** their snot contained blood, then you possibly could get Ebola. And that would be a direct transmission, not aerosol. That is why the CDC guidelines say that a high-risk contact is someone who has spent a prolonged period of time within 3 feet of an Ebola patient.
I am genuinely curious about why people want so desperately for Ebola to be an airborne disease. Despite the many efforts of the CDC, WHO, etc., to inform people how Ebola is actually spread, and how to protect oneself (stay away from Ebola patients, DOH)—people still want to believe that Ebola is airborne, and seem upset that no one who is familiar with the disease will ever say that it is. Why? This makes no sense to me.
If Ebola transmitted naturally by an aerosol route, we’d currently be picking up the pieces following a worldwide pandemic with millions or hundreds of millions of deaths. That is assuming that it would have the same CFR if it were a respiratory disease, which is a big assumption. Even in the cities where Ebola continues to spread—places with rather high population densities—Ebola has not spread to engulf the entire city (as it would have already done if it were highly contagious), but has affected relatively few people.
There is, however, a disease that is thought to transmit by aerosols, and causes thousands of deaths in the US alone every year. It’s called influenza. People who desperately want to be scared of an airborne disease have a perfect candidate right there. This year, the predominate strain circulating is H3N2—which usually causes a more severe flu season with higher numbers of deaths. I know, influenza is a killer but it is a familiar killer, so it is not scary.
Are you talking about Ebola, or influenza?
The first requirement for a disease to spread through aerosols is that it affect the respiratory system. Ebola is a bloodborne pathogen. The second requirement is that the disease is stable in the environment--Ebola is not. The third requirement is that the virus is small enough to fit into the tiny droplets. Ebola is big.
Influenza is (probably) transmissible by aerosols, it is respiratory, and it can survive for hours in the environment. It kills thousands of Americans every year, up to 50,000 some years. Are you worried about influenza?
What reason do we have to trust what the CDC says?
Because the CDC is consulting with the people who have been doing the Ebola research and going to Africa to contain outbreaks for the last 40 years. Plus, the CDC is familiar with the entire body of literature written by those same researchers and health care workers.
Being very familiar with the research myself, it's easy enough for me to verify what the CDC (or anyone else) says. So far, the CDC has been accurate--armchair pundits, not so much.
To evaluate CDC statements, you must see both the science and the politics, and be able to distinguish the relative role of each.
Surely you’ve heard the accusation that the CDC is mostly working to control information, while neglecting the control of disease.
The accusation is correct.
I have not seen Friedan say anything inaccurate about Ebola. Everything he has said is consistent with the scientific literature.
As far as I can tell, he is being criticized for NOT saying all the bilge that people think they know about Ebola as a result of reading The Hot Zone, or Outbreak, or one of the other highly sensationalized but woefully inaccurate dramatizations of a disease outbreak. Plus, he is a horrible public speaker, which does not help.
Are you able to see the political nature of Friedan’s responses?
I really want to hear about you going into a room with an Ebola patient in close proximity WITH NO PROTECTION
What’s the documentation of you putting your life and your family’s life at risk?
What’s the documentation of you putting your life and your family’s life at risk?
Excuse me, why do you say such a rude thing?
I pointed out that Ebola is not airborne and that it is spread by close contact. Nowhere did I say that people should not use proper PPE when dealing with Ebola.
Unlike you, I would NEVER suggest that anyone spend prolonged time in the vicinity of someone with a highly infectious and deadly disease without using appropriate PPE. I teach people safety and how to avoid getting infected in the laboratory setting--what have YOU done to help people avoid disease lately?
Thanks for the ping!
Well, it seems to me that if you are correct and THERE IS NO CHANCE ThAT IT IS AN AIRBORNE ILLNESS OR THAT IT HAS MUTATED TO ONE OR THAT IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED VIA AEROSOL TRANSMISSSION..as you claim..then you should have NO PROBLEM GOING INTO DUNCAN’S ROOM BEING CLOSER THAN 3 feet IN HIS DYING DAYS.
You can do it with an AIDS patient, right? Why not Ebola???????????????????????????????????????????????
I've seen no evidence that anyone wishes for Ebola to be an airborne disease. Can you point someone out?
Despite the many efforts of the CDC, WHO, etc., to inform people how Ebola is actually spread, and how to protect oneself (stay away from Ebola patients, DOH)
All the 'experts' involved have admitted they dropped the ball...Obama says they should have geared up the CDC for the first case in Texas...the CDC assured us virtually any hospital with a private room and toilet is capable of handling Ebola cases...OOPS! Obama has spoken about incorporating "lessons learned" going forward.
The head of WHO says they dropped the ball, too...they didn't realize how hard and fast it would hit...she says the transmission rate is unlike anything they've experienced before regarding Ebola...the doctor who discovered Ebola has been scathing in his criticism of all the professionals involved.
So, if there's any lesson to be drawn, it's that the "experts" are not up to the job. During the same press call Dr. Tom, the head of the CDC said you didn't have to worry about catching Ebola from riding on public transportation...then said if you believe you may have it you shouldn't use public transportation, so you don't pass it on to someone else.
Obama spoke of "lessons learned." The public are the ones who should be "learning the lessons," not the "experts."
They have no credibility, which is why it's sensible to prepare for the worst.
You mean, for example, that you don't have to worry about catching it from public transportation, but that if you have it, you shouldn't be riding public transportation so you don't pass it on?
Or that virtually any hospital with a private room/toilet is capable of handling Ebola cases?
This is a lefty theme...it appeared in the WaPost and the NYTimes.
You are extremely rude.
Ebola is not airborne. That does NOT mean it is not contagious within the contact zone--within three feet of an infected patient.
Can you at least make an attempt to read what I said, instead of going into hysterics over the fact that Ebola is NOT airborne?
And can you please explain why it upsets you so much that I say exactly what all of the scientists and physicians who work with Ebola say about it--that Ebola is contracted through prolonged close contact, not through aerosols? I am utterly dumbfounded that anyone can be upset over the fact that Ebola is only contagious by close contact, I am really trying to understand this.
Look at the graphic. I will reciprocate your kind words and suggest that YOU hang around in the orange zone without PPE. Meanwhile, I will remain safely in the white zone, watching.
Because I feel you are an idiot to claim that there is no way that Ebola can be spread via aerosol transmission.
Even top scientists say it is possible.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/top-ebola-expert-strain-much-worse-ever-weve-seen.html
Too much is unknown.
You should go get a job at the CDC. You will fit right in with their incompetence.
btw, go tell these people that respirators shouldn’t be used because there is no chance of aerosol transmission
Even top scientists say it is possible.
Because you feel, hmm? No thinking allowed, is that the case?
I don't know what a "top scientist" is. However, there is not a single Ebola researcher or healthcare worker who has cared for Ebola patients who claims that Ebola spreads by any means other than direct and close contact, within 3 feet. Because of the size and physical structure of the virus, it is as likely to go airborne as it is for pigs to start flying. It doesn't even infect the respiratory tissues that it would need to infect in order to be present in respiratory secretions.
btw, go tell these people that respirators shouldn’t be used because there is no chance of aerosol transmission
That was an advertisement for PAPRs, of the highly technical type of advertisement that is aimed at scientists such as myself. I get technical ads like that in snail mail and email all the time.
BTW, I bet you didn't read the article CIDRAP posted after so many non-scientists misinterpreted the one you linked to mean that there is proof that Ebola is airborne.
Response to statements falsely attributed to CIDRAP regarding Ebola transmission
In an effort to correct misinformation, we want to state clearly that:
CIDRAP has not made claims that "Ebola is Airbone" or that "Ebola [is] Transmittable by Air." (Emphasis mine.)
Being a scientist, I have read hundreds of scientific papers on Ebola--unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. How many Ebola original research papers have you read?
I'm glad that CIDRAP posted a clarification on that article. Now, whenever I see someone posting that article as "proof" that Ebola is airborne, I can post CIDRAP's clarification.
In this thread alone, I would say RummyChick. She is so upset at being told that Ebola is not airborne that she wishes I would get Ebola. I'd say that reflects a pretty strong desire for it to be airborne.
No, I cannot. He relays the information that we (the scientific community) have about Ebola. He has the information correct. What I see, however, is someone who is nervous, who does not know how to speak to the public, who is used to an audience as educated as he is. He has misspoken out of nervousness, like when he tried to explain that you wouldn't get Ebola if an infected person were on the bus with you, but that the infected person could vomit and possibly infect others that way--he totally messed that up. He is a total geek, and while his speaking style would be fine for an audience of my colleagues, it is not appropriate for the general public. I actually feel really sorry for the guy. I wouldn't want to be in his position right now (or ever, for that matter).
Here is a link to the original research article that the Science magazine news article referenced.
The researchers found virus RNA in 8 out of 12 saliva samples. However, the virus was viable in only one of those samples, or 8.3% of them..
Look at the tables in the linked article. The column to look at is the one showing results of virus culture. Virus culture is a test for viable, infectious virus. PCR tests only show that virus is present, but do not show whether it is viable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.