Replies

Since it is true that Ebola is not contagious until a person is symptomatic, why does it anger you when experts provide that information?

How do you expect a virus to leave someone's blood in order to infect someone else? Do infectious agents have tiny airplanes or something? There are many bloodborne infections that are not contagious at all, many of them endemic to the US. You will never catch dengue, malaria, or chikungunya from another person--all are bloodborne diseases, and spread by mosquitoes.

Bodily fluids carrying the infection can obviously infect someone exposed to them.

Expelling bodily fluids is one of the symptoms. An asymptomatic person does not vomiting or have diarrhea; once they start doing that, they are symptomatic, by definition. If we care to anthropomorphize the virus, we can say that it makes people vomit in order to find new hosts.

This is the same sort of lie they told about AIDS in the early days.

What kind of lie was supposedly told? AIDS is far more difficult to catch than Ebola, and is spread because it manages to get from the blood into the semen. A few years ago, I had to go into a hospital room of a man who had just died of AIDS. Although I came within a few feet of him, I did not catch AIDS. That's because blood-borne viruses do not fly.

What angers me, as late as a couple of days ago they had idiots going on television stating EBOLA couldn’t be spread if a carrier was asymptomatic. If it’s in the blood stream, it is transmittable.

Since it is true that Ebola is not contagious until a person is symptomatic, why does it anger you when experts provide that information?

You may find comfort in this fairy tale, but that's still all it is, a fairly tale. What are symptoms derived from? They are derived from infection in the blood. This infection is carried to the cells and within time symptoms present.

Once the Ebola virus is present in human bodily fluids, other people who somehow are exposed to those bodily fluids will become infected. It makes no sense whatsoever to think that ebola present in patient one, which would progress from asymptomatic to symptomatic merely from the presence, would not go through that progression in patient two if the bodily fluids were introduced into their blood.

You can convince yourself this isn't rational if you like. I certainly won't be joining you in that belief.

For this reason, I consider it a lie when they state that no infection can be transmitted before a patient is symptomatic. Yes, it can. What is true is that the infection cannot be transmitted from blood sores until the patient is symptomatic, presenting blood sores.

How do you expect a virus to leave someone's blood in order to infect someone else? Do infectious agents have tiny airplanes or something? There are many bloodborne infections that are not contagious at all, many of them endemic to the US. You will never catch dengue, malaria, or chikungunya from another person--all are bloodborne diseases, and spread by mosquitoes.

If these people leave human bodily fluids around, then yes a cross infection can take place.

Bodily fluids carrying the infection can obviously infect someone exposed to them.

Expelling bodily fluids is one of the symptoms. An asymptomatic person does not vomiting or have diarrhea; once they start doing that, they are symptomatic, by definition. If we care to anthropomorphize the virus, we can say that it makes people vomit in order to find new hosts.

What happens if an infected person is cut, sneazes, coughhs, spits, or transmits bodily fluids in another manner? Are these a symptom? No. The fact is that if another person's skin has becompromsed by a cut or scrape, then this human bodily fluid can be introduced into their blood stream.

This is the same sort of lie they told about AIDS in the early days.

What kind of lie was supposedly told? AIDS is far more difficult to catch than Ebola, and is spread because it manages to get from the blood into the semen. A few years ago, I had to go into a hospital room of a man who had just died of AIDS. Although I came within a few feet of him, I did not catch AIDS. That's because blood-borne viruses do not fly.

There are a myriad of lies they told about AIDS. The biggest was that it wasn't primarily a homosexual disease. In fact it was.

They said the general population had nothing to fear, the blood supply was safe. It wasn't.

They said that you can't catch the disease if you practice safe sex, and follow a few other basic guidelines. Actually, you could. 20% plus of the population has no idea how they got the disease.

They said you have no reason to fear kids with AIDS in the classroom. As a matter of fact there are a number of ways the disease could be transmitted child to child.

1. A kid with AIDS could put a pencil in their mouth, loading it with saliva. The could leave it on their desk. A child comes buy and picks up the pencil. Within a few minutes they unthinkingly put that pencil in their mouth. Child two has a patch of raw gums. The AIDS virus is introduced to the mouth and absorbed.

2. A kids with AIDS has an injury on the playground. His bodily fluids are left there. A second child comes along with a cut on a finger and picks up a rock with blood on it.

3. I child sneezes or coughs, spraying bodily fluids in the direction of a child with his/her mouth open. They have a gum problem and the infection is absorbed.

I'm sure there are other ways this could happen also, the transmission from child to child.

It's all rather deniable until you realize that 20% of the known cases of AIDS have no definable source as to how the people were infected. They were living a safe lifestyle. They weren't participating in dangerous sex. They hadn't gotten blood transfusions. They hadn't hung out around AIDS patients in a high risk setting.

They lied. If you wish to believe them fine. 200,000 people have proven you wrong.