Everything I have stated is accurate and the references you cite show that.
You seem not to actually read the things you cite, not understand them.
You ignore the words always associated with bilogicla questions such as "usually" and "generally".
You post things that contradict each other, at least seemingly in the context of your argument, and make the false argument that the references you cite reflect your discussion and presentation, which they don't.
Your last post was actually fine, I agree, excpet that I think you are the one who has an emotional problem talking about it. You don't want to actually discuss the nuts and bots, what has happened in the past in real life, how possible is it that it could be passed from person to person unknowingly -- things like that which are the questions people have.
You seem rather to want to shut down discussion by citing technical refernces and quoting words you cannot even explain or understand.
I actually think you are the one scared and are projecting it and hiding behind the veil of experts say all is safe and then covering your ears.
Going back, the initial question that begins this is can a person be infectious and not know he has small pox.
You reference this: A person infected with smallpox and overtly sick usually transmits the virus face-to-face in a closed dwelling. There is no infectious subclinical state.
No subclinical state, as if it is the end of story. But the same reference disccusses the difficulty in diagnosis even calling it a "clinician's nightmare".
Great diagnostic difficulties arise through wide variations from this characteristic pattern. Very severe disease may result in death even before the focal rash is fully developed and sometimes, as in haemorrhagic smallpox bleeding into the skin and from the body orifices wrongly focuses attention towards some severe and acute blood disease. Mild smallpox naturally occuring - or more likely modified in this direction by residual immunity resulting from an old vaccination - also presents great difficulties in clinical diagnosis, so much so that it was described by one witness as "the clinicians nightmare".
So, you are not really providing information, but are using technical jargon to clamp down on analysis and discussion and understanding.
DA enderson has said how virtually no Doctor would recognize a small pox case today. Sure, it may not be infectious subclinically, but if a clinician cannot recognize it that means little.
Anyhow, as I think abou your posts and how intellecually dishonest they have been, how you have been spcious and partaken in the lowest forms of cheap debate, I am wondering why I have tried to be civil with you.
One of your good ones was changing the topic and the quote. I say people can spread small pos without knowing they have it.
You then change the statement to something else and attack it.
Just cheap low stuff. Man, what's wrong with you?
You really seem to have a persecution complex, don't you?
It is interesting to note that at NO TIME did I mention you as the source of the information I consider misleading.
Go on, go back and look. I only say "some around here needlessly trying to scare people." And you jump in soon after that defending yourself. I must have touched a rew nerve, no?
Back on subject, with a few exceptions, I have stayed on topic. I would like to see how I "change the subject".
The topic is, of course, smallpox. There are some facts that are easily verifiable, and I have merely tried to transmit them. The fact remains that that the disease does not become contagious until a rash forms. Usually that rash forms originally in the pharynx and oral cavity. I have seen slides of cases, and while I'm sure there are cases that diagnosis would be difficult, in a situation where the is a confirmed outbreak of smallpox, it would not be difficult to differentiate.
Now, you seem to keep coming back to the difficulty of diagnosis. It is a troublesome disease to distinguish for a few reasons, first of all the rash, in its early stages it mimics chickenpox. Therefore if a child presents at an offices with fever, malaise, and a body rash, at this point in time, the physician would think chickenpox. That is to be expected because smallpox is not around anymore. However, if a case is diagnosed anywhere in the country today, every doctor around will immediately take precautions he normally wouldn't take. Essentially you are looking at cases in a vacuum, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture.
The other reason smallpox is difficult to diagnose is that the early symptoms mimic the flu or common cold, and the inital infective stages the rash MAY be confined to only the oral cavity. However, once it is know that smallpox it present in the community, every doctor will treat these seemingly innocuous cases as smallpox, probably with vaccinations and isolation
You see, as I've said earlier, the etiology of the disease, makes identification and isolation a little easier than, say, polio, where infective people can walk around perfectly fine while spreading the disease.