Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't "think" anything, because I have no way of corroborating it. I posted these articles for those who may possibly be interested, in case they would like to follow up as I will try to. Everything being "put out there" on the Net or otherwise deserves skepticism, including and perhaps especially government agencies.
One thing to keep in mind is that just about anyone who digs further to try to find out information below the surface is immediately discredited, often viciously, to keep their findings from spreading. They are a threat to mainstream thinking. This happens with everything from climate change to nuclear plants and fracking to toxins in our water to this problem of Ebola. Every issue has more than one side to it, and every dissent from the mainstream line is attacked.
None of us know what is really going on, and we should not pretend to. We are all reading the very sources that back up how we tend to opine. We have no idea what's behind what, if anything. That said, there is no harm in knowing all the possibilities surrounding serious matters. One thing for sure is that the AP (Associated Press) will never come out with anything other than what is being officially said. If anyone wants to know the truth, look to as many sources (other than AP) as can be found, usually from independent investigative journalists.
Maybe they're discredited because they sound like nutters? Sorry but discrediting conspiracy theorists is a good practice and one which I wholeheartedly agree with doing.
I had heard that some survivors had poor health and muscle and joint pain after Ebola, but I had not seen anything about blindness. Hopefully, someone will be able to tell what kind of blindness it is: retinal damage or neurologic? Optic nerve or visual cortex?
"But unfortunately, Ebola survivors do often develop certain chronic inflammatory conditions that affect the joints and eyes, problems that can follow a survivor through the remainder of their life.
Dr. Amar Safdar, associate professor of infectious diseases and immunology at NYU Langone Medical Center, told CBS News these chronic conditions are a result of the body's immune response.
He said Ebola survivors are at risk for arthralgia, a type of joint and bone pain that can feel similar to arthritis. Ebola survivors also frequently report complications with eyes and vision, an inflammatory condition known as uveitis which can cause excess tearing, eye sensitivity, eye inflammation and even blindness.
'No one knows exactly why,' Safdar told CBS News. 'Certain infections or certain viruses have been known to cause uveitis. It is treated with giving steroids and primarily something that will dilate the pupil.' "
I don't "think" anything, because I have no way of corroborating it. I posted these articles for those who may possibly be interested, in case they would like to follow up as I will try to. Everything being "put out there" on the Net or otherwise deserves skepticism, including and perhaps especially government agencies.
One thing to keep in mind is that just about anyone who digs further to try to find out information below the surface is immediately discredited, often viciously, to keep their findings from spreading. They are a threat to mainstream thinking. This happens with everything from climate change to nuclear plants and fracking to toxins in our water to this problem of Ebola. Every issue has more than one side to it, and every dissent from the mainstream line is attacked.
None of us know what is really going on, and we should not pretend to. We are all reading the very sources that back up how we tend to opine. We have no idea what's behind what, if anything. That said, there is no harm in knowing all the possibilities surrounding serious matters. One thing for sure is that the AP (Associated Press) will never come out with anything other than what is being officially said. If anyone wants to know the truth, look to as many sources (other than AP) as can be found, usually from independent investigative journalists.
You thought enough about the validity of the link to post it here. Other than the opinion of Dr. Cyril E. Broderick, Sr., do you have any evidence from a credible source that Ebola was created as a bioweapon and loosed on West Africa? Not every crazy theory about the disease deserves equal consideration here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Maybe they're discredited because they sound like nutters? Sorry but discrediting conspiracy theorists is a good practice and one which I wholeheartedly agree with doing.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic
Also, I haven't seen any medical reports, or reports of any kind, on what the ebola virus does to brain tissue.
One of the presenting symptoms is often headache. Victims can get brain swelling, have seizures, and develop comas.
To say that the entire travel infrastructure would be impacted, you would first have to show that the inflow to those countries far outpaces the outflow (of visitors). I have not seen anyone making that claim. Limiting travel to only essential personnel while the crisis is brought under control would be prudent, not damaging. This removes the casual visitors (e.g. tourists), the nutters (e.g. Rutland man who wanted to see Ebola up close and personal), and the ones trying anything nefarious (none yet, thank goodness). I do not favor a full out travel ban. I do favor restricted visas. This would still allow the movement of aid workers back and forth to the affected countries.
this actually makes the most sense but
a selected few in power has been rejecting this notion.
60% are in favor of at least doing something like this.
so it is not just nutty people
#2. Change "within 21 days" to "within 31 days" (would work 95% of the time) or "within 42 days" (would work 98% of the time).
The original 21-day time frame was based on a preliminary WHO report that reviewed limited data (the early months of the current Africa outbreak), and found an average incubation period of 11.4 days, with 95% of the ebola cases showing up within 21 days of exposure. The part of the report largely ignored by proponents of the 21-day quarantine was this: from 0.1% to 12% of the time, the incubation period was more than 21 days.Study: 31-day quarantine required for Ebola, On the Quarantine Period for Ebola Virus – PLOS Currents Outbreaks
Many subsequent months of data and analysis clearly indicate that a 21-day quarantine period is inadequate, and even a 42-day quarantine would not be 100% effective: "Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42-day interval." Ebola: WHO Cites Cases With Longer Incubation Period of 42 Days In other words, 5 out of every 100 cases of ebola will have an incubation period of more than 21 days, and 2 out of every 100 cases will have an incubation period of over 42 days.
#2. Change "within 21 days" to "within 31 days" (would work 95% of the time) or "within 42 days" (would work 98% of the time).
The original 21-day time frame was based on a preliminary WHO report that reviewed limited data (the early months of the current Africa outbreak), and found an average incubation period of 11.4 days, with 95% of the ebola cases showing up within 21 days of exposure. The part of the report largely ignored by proponents of the 21-day quarantine was this: from 0.1% to 12% of the time, the incubation period was more than 21 days.Study: 31-day quarantine required for Ebola, On the Quarantine Period for Ebola Virus – PLOS Currents Outbreaks
Many subsequent months of data and analysis clearly indicate that a 21-day quarantine period is inadequate, and even a 42-day quarantine would not be 100% effective: "Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42-day interval." Ebola: WHO Cites Cases With Longer Incubation Period of 42 Days In other words, 5 out of every 100 cases of ebola will have an incubation period of more than 21 days, and 2 out of every 100 cases will have an incubation period of over 42 days.
Strange that I keep seeing references to WHO, yet the WHO website and reports never mention the above.
I see that one link, to WND, has a report (subscription required!) written by Jerome R. Corsi.
"The period of 42 days, with active case-finding in place, is twice the maximum incubation period for Ebola virus disease and is considered by WHO as sufficient to generate confidence in a declaration that an Ebola outbreak has ended.
Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that
95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days;
98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval.
WHO is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over.
The announcement that the outbreaks are over, in line with the dates fixed by the subcommittee on surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory testing, is made by the governments of the affected countries in close collaboration with WHO and its international partners.
Official announcements for the 2 countries will be made on the WHO website."
-I hope this will put to rest those that doubt our references of WHO
and they will spread the word
good day
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
