WHO contradicts CDC's claims. Yup

It is a no brainer but they keep treating the public like we are a bunch of children unable to grasp the reality of the situation. This is a freaking dictatorship. I'm ashamed that I live in a country in which there is control of the press, people vote and want someone like Obama controlling our freaking lives.

quote:

---

n 2009, Reston-EBOV was the first EBOV detected in swine with indicated transmission to humans. In-contact transmission of Zaire-EBOV (ZEBOV) between pigs was demonstrated experimentally. Here we show ZEBOV transmission from pigs to cynomolgus macaques without direct contact. Interestingly, transmission between macaques in similar housing conditions was never observed.

---

quote:

---

We have also never observed transmission of EBOV from infected to naive macaques, including in an experiment employing the same cage setting as in the current study, where three NHPs intramuscularly inoculated with EBOV did not transmit the virus to one naive NHP for 28 days, the duration of the protocol.

---

quote:

---

During another study, three EBOV infected NHPs cohabiting with 10 naive NHPs in adjacent cage systems did not transmit the virus to naive animals for 28 days

---

LINK

quote:

---

Under conditions of the current study, transmission of ZEBOV could have occurred either by inhalation (of aerosol or larger droplets), and/or droplet inoculation of eyes and mucosal surfaces and/or by fomites due to droplets generated during the cleaning of the room. Infection of all four macaques in an environment, preventing direct contact between the two species and between the macaques themselves, supports the concept of airborne transmission.

---

quote:

---

It is of interest, that the first macaques to become infected were housed in cages located directly within the main airflow to the air exhaust system. The experimental setting of the present study could not quantify the relative contribution of aerosol, small and large droplets in the air, and droplets landing inside the NHP cages (fomites) to EBOV transmission between pigs and macaques. These parameters will need to be investigated using an experimental approach specifically designed to address this question.

The present study provides evidence that infected pigs can efficiently transmit ZEBOV to NHPs in conditions resembling farm setting. Our findings support the hypothesis that airborne transmission may contribute to ZEBOV spread, specifically from pigs to primates, and may need to be considered in assessing transmission from animals to humans in general. The present experimental findings would explain REBOV seropositivity of pig farmers in Philippines2,3 that were not involved in slaughtering or had no known contact with contaminated pig tissues. The results of this study also raise a possibility that wild or domestic pigs may be a natural (non-reservoir) host for EBOV participating in the EBOV transmission to other species in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

long story short. If you aren't cleaning up infected fluids or have direct contact with an infected person especially at the end when they are most contagious or are a pig famer in an ebola country.

quote:

---

austingator

---

did you read the references given at the bottom of the article?

quote:

---

The Ebola virus can also be transmitted indirectly, by contact with previously contaminated surfaces and objects. The risk of transmission from these surfaces is low and can be reduced even further by appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedures.

---

They left out that part.

quote:

---

Ebola virus disease is not an airborne infection. Airborne spread among humans implies inhalation of an infectious dose of virus from a suspended cloud of small dried droplets.

This mode of transmission has not been observed during extensive studies of the Ebola virus over several decades.

Common sense and observation tell us that spread of the virus via coughing or sneezing is rare, if it happens at all. Epidemiological data emerging from the outbreak are not consistent with the pattern of spread seen with airborne viruses, like those that cause measles and chickenpox, or the airborne bacterium that causes tuberculosis.

Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person.

This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person.

WHO is not aware of any studies that actually document this mode of transmission. On the contrary, good quality studies from previous Ebola outbreaks show that all cases were infected by direct close contact with symptomatic patients.[/quote]

dammit science always gettting in the way of a good panic.
[quote]Moreover, scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission. For example, the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which has caused sporadic human cases since 1997, is now endemic in chickens and ducks in large parts of Asia.

That virus has probably circulated through many billions of birds for at least two decades. Its mode of transmission remains basically unchanged.

Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence.

This kind of speculation is unfounded but understandable as health officials race to catch up with this fast-moving and rapidly evolving outbreak.

To stop this outbreak, more needs to be done to implement – on a much larger scale – well-known protective and preventive measures. Abundant evidence has documented their effectiveness.

---

straight from the horse's mouth

ETA: How can the CDC be lying when the author uses a CDC interview as a reference? (the second reference at the bottom of the article).

There's more than one strain of ebola. Plus, it mutates. Info from 2009 may not be worth very much now.

You know the hate for Obama is strong when a right wing hack piece uses a UN agency as authority to bash him by way of the CDC.

Next up, Beitbart uses ISIS as authority to bash Obama by criticizing PBS

So the individual has to be "heavily infected" and vomiting violently. basically thier body must have very high levels of the virus.

So this is actually consistent with what we are being told, that simply having a low grade fever and nothing else early on is harmless.

All you need to see is the current PPE by chief medical officer at presby while talking to the infected by for the most part asymptomatic young nurse recently transferred to maryland.

He wore full PPE covering everything and a n95. And the infected nurse may not even be shedding that much virus yet.

Compare that to the gear that they supplied her when she was taking care of duncan at his most infectious and you will see the hypocrisy of the situation.

This is the problem when you have administrators making decisions and not physicians. Very rarely do administrators totally agree with recommendations made by physicians.