Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
US ARMY Says EBOLA = FLU in Airborne Stability |
Post Reply |
Author | |
gady71
Valued Member Joined: June 06 2006 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1661 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: October 20 2014 at 1:35pm |
US ARMY Says EBOLA = FLU in Airborne Stability, Needs Winter Weather To Go Airborne
According to the Center for Aerobiological Sciences, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland: (1) Ebola has an aerosol stability that is comparable to Influenza-A (2) Much like Flu, Airborne Ebola transmissions need Winter type conditions to maximize Aerosol infection "Filoviruses, which are classified as Category A Bioterrorism Agents by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA), have stability in aerosol form comparable to other lipid containing viruses such as influenza A virus, a low infectious dose by the aerosol route (less than 10 PFU) in NHPs, and case fatality rates as high as ~90% ." "The mode of acquisition of viral infection in index cases is usually unknown. Secondary transmission of filovirus infection is typically thought to occur by direct contact with infected persons or infected blood or tissues. There is no strong evidence of secondary transmission by the aerosol route in African filovirus outbreaks. However, aerosol transmission is thought to be possible and may occur in conditions of lower temperature and humidity which may not have been factors in outbreaks in warmer climates [13]. At the very least, the potential exists for aerosol transmission, given that virus is detected in bodily secretions, the pulmonary alveolar interstitial cells, and within lung spaces" Analysis: Its clear that when Ebola is in the air it is at least as hardy as Influenza. Its also clear that coughing and sneezing is what makes Influenza airborne; the same should be expected of Ebola. Moreover, just as sun, heat, and humidity along the Earths' Equatorial regions serve to 'burn' Influenza out of the air, the same should be expected of Ebola. The difference with Ebola is that physical contact with even the tiniest amounts of infected bodily fluid can cause infection, hence unlike flu it also readily spreads in equatorial regions. When Ebola spreads to the regions of the Earth which experience Fall and Winter Flu seasons, airborne Ebola infectious routes are to be expected in conjunction with direct contact infection. Ebola has the capability to infect pretty much every cell in the entire human respiratory tract. Similarly, our skin offers little resistance to even the smallest amounts of Ebola. How much airborne transmission will occur will be a function of how well Ebola induces coughing and sneezing in its victims in cold weather climates. Coughing and nasal bleeding are both reported symptoms in Africa, so the worst should be expected. In that regard, co-infections with Flu, Cold, or even seasonal Allergies will readily transform Ebola victims into biowarefare factories. Unlike Flu, a person need not inhale airborne Ebola to be infected via airborne transmission. Merely walking through an airspace (or touching the objects therein) where an Ebola victim has coughed or sneezed is potentially enough for a cold weather infection to occur. As such, all indicators are that Ebola's potential rate of infectious spread in cold weather climates is EXPLOSIVELY greater than what is occurring in Equatorial Africa In that regard, the government's Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group [FANG] is standardizing on a Airborne Ebola Infectious "challenge" of 1000 PFU that all proposed medical countermeasures must defeat in order to gain acceptance. Mutation: Given that the experts are keenly aware that most mutations lead to viral dead ends and given the ARMY's public research documents make such a clear case that the Ebola airborne risk is here and now, the question remains: why are the experts pushing a "future mutation"fear on the public? The primary benefits of the media mutation gambit are: 1) When the public becomes aware Ebola is airborne, the public will default to blaming a mutation rather blaming the experts for having prior knowledge of Ebola's transmissability 2) A scary future fear makes for great immediate fund raising from a public seeking to avoid it. 3) The expert clique comes down hard on experts that do anything which is perceived to immediately raise public fear, an accurate warning to the public can immediately negatively affect a forthright expert's budget and prestige 4) Public knowledge of imminent Public Health threats negatively affects supply chains and the logistics planned responses The next time some expert pushes the Ebola mutation risk ask them to specify exactly what mutations would be required to do as they claim. When they refuse, ask why experts spelled out the mutation steps of Avian Influenza and why they won't for Ebola. The answer is: Ebola can already infect pretty much every cell in the human respiratory system. Sources: http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/4/10/2115/pdf http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041918 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/ http://vet.sagepub.com/content/50/3/514.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113787/ Link to the original article : http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.ro/2014/09/us-army-says-ebola-flu-in-airborne.html |
|
I do apologize for my poor english. Prepare for the Worst and Hope for the Best!
|
|
carbon20
Moderator Joined: April 08 2006 Location: West Australia Status: Offline Points: 65816 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
great post gady71
scary...........
|
|
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖
Marcus Aurelius |
|
arirish
Admin Group Joined: June 19 2013 Location: Arkansas Status: Offline Points: 39215 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm not sure I consider pissinontheroses a legitimate news source. I read all four of the studies listed as sources and I don't find anything in any of them that suggest Ebola is airborne. The Sage Journal study goes so far as to state " Aerosol exposure as a means of human infection has never been documented"!
|
|
Buy more ammo!
|
|
gady71
Valued Member Joined: June 06 2006 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1661 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
arirish You are right somehow I was asking myself if this pissinontheroese is a credible source before I start to post here some articles from that site. But, looking at many movies there and reading some articles I decided that the guy there knows what is he doing. (he is reading multiple sources and every single article there is supported by many links at the end of the page). That's my opinion about this site - who somehow is focusing on this Ebola virus since few months ago. I was also about to post a topic names "pissiontheroses" and ask the forum members here to say what they think about this site (I`m still thinking about this... ) Or this guy is very good at what he is doing (posting news almost before the news agencies) or the guy is just a poor liar.
|
|
I do apologize for my poor english. Prepare for the Worst and Hope for the Best!
|
|
arirish
Admin Group Joined: June 19 2013 Location: Arkansas Status: Offline Points: 39215 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
gady71- I'm not sure either and like you would welcome some opinions! I'll try to do a little research on it.
|
|
Buy more ammo!
|
|
guest
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Even flu doesn't tend to be airborne in tropic/subtropic climates. Has ebola even been well studied outside of Africa? Do we really know what will happen in the northern latitudes in the dead of winter? Most viruses are more infectious in cold dry air. Why would ebola be different?
|
|
gady71
Valued Member Joined: June 06 2006 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1661 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
I do apologize for my poor english. Prepare for the Worst and Hope for the Best!
|
|
Dutch Josh
Adviser Group Joined: May 01 2013 Location: Arnhem-Netherla Status: Offline Points: 95567 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think "pissinontheroses"might be used as a "news outlet" for speculations. The internet-world will discuss their "news" and future will tell how to value their information. This largest outbreak of ebola ever means that science is in a new world. But the large numbers of infections already involved and the rate of mutations the outlook is not very good.
A small percentage of incubation-time longer than 21 days and Ebola as a sexual transmitable disease (STD) with the high numbers involved means that there will be hundreds of cases that might escape detection. A STD also has a "shame-factor" wich could mean that detection will be more running behind the facts. International response is months behind the West-African reality, WHO-numbers might not reflect real developments. That all is bad news. The only good news is that there seems to be infections that do not cause illness or further spread. But the rate of mutations on the other hand could mean that people who did survive an early form of Ebola might be infected again by a new form of Ebola.
|
|
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein |
|
gady71
Valued Member Joined: June 06 2006 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1661 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
just looking around on CDC site, I took a "Quick Learn Lesson" , regarding biosafety.
On page 10 about the BSL-4 : This is what its a BSL-4 (bio safety laboratory lvl 4 0 highest lvl ): "BSL-4 builds upon the containment requirements of BSL-3 and is the highest level of biological safety. There are a small number of BSL-4 labs in the United States and around the world. The microbes in a BSL-4 lab are dangerous and exotic, posing a high risk of aerosol-transmitted infections. Infections caused by these microbes are frequently fatal and without treatment or vaccines. Two examples of microbes worked with in a BSL-4 laboratory include Ebola and Marburg viruses." Please do notice the "posing a high risk of aerosol-transmitted infections" "Two examples of microbes worked with in a BSL-4 laboratory include Ebola and Marburg viruses" http://www.cdc.gov/training/quicklearns/biosafety/ |
|
I do apologize for my poor english. Prepare for the Worst and Hope for the Best!
|
|
CRS, DrPH
Expert Level Adviser Joined: January 20 2014 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 26660 |
Post Options
Thanks(3)
|
Aerosol transmission is not the same thing as airborne transmission. Two entirely different mechanisms, with different physics and characteristics.
Ebola is not an airborne virus like the cold or flu, and will not mutate into one. Viral mutations that change how a virus transmits are likely exceedingly rare, if they happen at all. Take rabies as an example. If you are afraid of airborne Ebola, why are you not afraid of airborne Rabies? It has a much higher case fatality rate (nearly 100%), causes tens of thousands of deaths worldwide every year, and is endemic in many animal species (foxes, skunks, bats, racoons etc.). This talk about "Ebola mutating to go airborne" is just blather, not substantiated by any science. Get over it, contact transmission is actually far worse for a virus like Ebola. If Ebola were to spread in the USA, smart people would shelter-in-place, and idiots would run around until they contracted Ebola and died.
|
|
CRS, DrPH
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
Kay
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
http://www.inquisitr.com/1541821/ebola-is-airborne-university-of-minnesota-cidrap-researchers-claim/
|
|
CRS, DrPH
Expert Level Adviser Joined: January 20 2014 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 26660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks, I know the faculty at the University of Illinois who are quoted by CIDRAP. This is their article: Profs. Brosseau and Jones state the following, in which I am in agreement. However, this would also apply to someone doing an autopsy on a human casualty of rabies, BSE etc. Aerosol transmission is NOT airborne transmission!! We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1
|
|
CRS, DrPH
|
|
Mike
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Did you not read the Army report? Both the Army Report and the CDC training for BS-L4 indicate a possibility of aerosol transmission - the Army study goes on to state , w/characteristics similar to influenza...w/lethality in monkeys of 4-5 days. The Army report describes such conditions occurring in a cold, dry climate - which ebola seems to favor and which encourages aerosol transformation.
The Army Infectious Diseases department has been working (weaponizing)with this stuff since the 70's.....
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |