Ebola Nurse Kaci Hickox -- Spurs Fan

[elmanutres]

No healthcare worker in the U.S. has ever spread Ebola.

Chris Christie poses a bigger healthcare risk by making obesity seem acceptable.

:lmao oh shit

[ChumpDumper]

Implying all those infected Africans are shit eaters is pretty fucking racist.Since when are all bowlers in Brooklyn African?

Extremely racist assumption of you.

[Cry Havoc]

Implying all those infected Africans are shit eaters is pretty fucking racist.

:lmao Not paying attention.

:lmao Trying to make a smug joke that makes absolutely no sense.

[littlecoyotecoin]

The ones that weren't blocked by the software at my work are interesting, but still, there are a lot of "possibles," "coulds," and "maybes" thrown around in those articles.

Well, that is my point. The CDC FAQs are making absolute statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies. They don't trust the public, with some good reason, to understand the difference between "no chance" of infection, and "very little" chance of infection. And, the court case has embolden people to be their own monitors and voluntarily look out for the well-being of the masses over themselves. That will probably not work out well, and if there are millions of cases of Ebola in the world, and we begin to learn more and more about it, we will probably begin to see how it propagates itself in several ways, some of them via asymptomatic means. The persistence of the virus for 60 days after recovery, in semen, should be a little alarming. But, I know that since I was young, young men have totally matured, and every young gentleman chasing tail in bars will voluntarily disclose to their desired that they are still only 40 days into recovery, and that they won't be able to blow their load into some gals mouth because that could put her in danger. We learned from the AIDS epidemic that people, when left alone, are totally responsible.

But, Skull makes note of the gray area, where the CDC let the gal fly with a temp of 99. Symptomatic, according to what I've read, is 100.x. So they are telling me that she was shedding 0 virus at 99 degrees. I find it very unlikely, but possible. Still not very prudent to let her get on a plane. And, she was being responsible. During a widespread infection, we'll have plenty that will not be.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Like I said, I didn't bold it. It was bolded on Maine's CDC site. The same Maine CDC that the PJ site tried to use to say she should be quarantined. I was just using the info because it was mentioned in that link that YOU originally posted.

You realize the CDC is scrubbing their websites to remove anything that might be true, but could cause panic by an uneducated reader, right?

Liberal websites like The Daily Kos, HuffPo, and maybe reddit, have been holding their feet to the fire over this.

[Warlord23]

If you guys don't trust the scientists or the CDC or the Kenyan's administration when they tell you that quarantine is unnecessary for people who have tested negative for Ebola, why are you quick to believe that a 21 day quarantine is sufficient? If the experts are all morons and/or have an agenda, maybe the quarantine should be for 1 year. Hell, maybe the only way to protect you from Ebola is to shoot people who you think might have Ebola, regardless of what the tests say.

Once you throw the science out of the window and respond based on extreme fear/prejudice, why not go all the way and nuke half of Africa to protect your freedoms.

Chris Christie, of course, is the only honest guy here, right? No way he would ever mislead people to get some political capital, would he?

[littlecoyotecoin]

Hey, more fear mongering.

At least he isn't an osteopath, I guess.

Hey, the article says that Americans, after recent events at the Dallas hospital, may be OVER-REACTING. That doesn't sound like fear-mongrring to me, but whatevs, if you need to dismiss the source, you will find a way. I get it.

[littlecoyotecoin]

According to the article there there is ONE study that implies if one is Ebola POSITIVE it is POSSIBLE that they COULD spread it in a sneeze.

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

Last I read, she did NOT test positive for Ebola. She does not have respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions and is not vomiting. Therefore, she should not be quarantined. Which the court aggred with.

Because she hasn't tested positive, yet, doesn't mean she's not positive. Thus, the quarantine. And, respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions is stated because sneezing and coughing is not a symptom by itself. But, realize the other condition could be hayfever, dust, etc. She doesn't have to have any "serious" condition to sneeze. Also, I have never based the point I am trying to make on the notion that I think she is infected. What I think about that doesn't matter. She is from a hot zone, and an abundance of caution should be taken, not minimal precautions. I, contrary to what is being painted about my comments, am not fear mongering. I don't believe she is infected. I don't believe she is necessarily going to infect anyone else. But, being lackadaisical about things will leave more openings for error, just like in the Dallas hospital. She probably won't infect anyone, but one of the hundreds that are coming back from these hot zones eventually might, and you can guarantee that people will be wondering why stricter controls were not put on their movements if that happens. Hindsight is 20/20. If you call for it prematurely, you're a fear-mongering idiot, if you don't do it and it causes a problem later, you are a lax incompetent beaureucrat. The virus doesn't care about our politics.

I am not suggesting this is going to be World War Z. Someone referred to it as a slow-motion train wreck, and I liked that analogy. Unfortunately, we may just be at the very beginning. Hopefully it doesn't turn into an AIDS type of epidemic, or worse.

Regarding how difficult it is to get:

"A single air traveler from Liberia to Lagos managed to infect 11 people directly, and 8 more indirectly. The Nigerian CDC was able to contain the outbreak, but it involved the efforts of hundreds of people tracing 900 contacts, and in the end 8 people died. A quarantine is a small price to pay to avoid situations like this."

He was symptomatic, but this still flies in the face of what Obama recently stated in his public address, that you can't get it from a guy riding a bus. Not only can you, but you and 18 more people can get it from that guy.

I'll post some more interesting articles later.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, the article says that Americans, after recent events at the Dallas hospital, may be OVER-REACTING. That doesn't sound like fear-mongrring to me, but whatevs, if you need to dismiss the source, you will find a way. I get it.
You may be overreacting.

[Dre_7]

Well, that is my point. The CDC FAQs are making absolute statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies.

That is where you stand then. The conspiracy sites posted here are making statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies.

So that is what it comes to. We both have our own opinions. Mine based on the CDC, and research done by the people I work with (Doctors, Nurses, etc). Your opinions come from your sources. We are going to have to agree to disagree. That is part of being American. You know, land of the free. If you really wanna be safe, you should go to Canada. They are giving into the fear, might be the place to go.

[rmt]

The point is no one knows much about this disease or if it mutates - why not be safe than sorry. The states are willing to pay each person whatever they would earn at their job. Stay home, read, enjoy a 3 week vacation courtesy of the state. Why risk even the possibility of developing a fever while on a subway and infecting others. The ever changing CDC protocols:

Close contact is defined as being for a prolonged period of time while not wearing appropriate PPE within approximately 3 feet (1 meter) of a person with Ebola while the person was symptomatic i.e. subjective fever or measured temperature ≥100.4°F/38°C OR any of the following:*

severe headache
muscle pain
vomiting
diarrhea
stomach pain
unexplained bruising or bleeding

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/exposure/monitoring-and-movement-of-persons-with-exposure.html

Who really knows whether a 100.3 or a 100.4 fever is contagious? The true test is whether you're (or your spouse/children) willing to sit beside an infected person and risk them sneezing on you. It is not worth the risk when they can easily stay home. This nurse is just seeking attention with her lawsuit, etc. - the common sense thing to do is relax at home for 3 weeks. The CDC has changed its stance on ebola being transmitted through droplets, and as the NY Post reports: [3]

The city's first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said. Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment -- and didn't admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_ebola_transmission_cdc_quackery_aerosolized _particles.html#ixzz3HqMaezGT

The safest route is to do what Australia and Canada have done - ban travel from Ebola countries. What I don't get is that the military is undergoing 3 week isolation/quarantine before coming back to the States. If the troops have to do it, why not the general population (especially health care workers who have worked closely with Ebola patients). After all, the troops are only supposed to be setting up hospitals and beds but they do the 3 week isolation.

[littlecoyotecoin]

That is where you stand then. The conspiracy sites posted here are making statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies.

So that is what it comes to. We both have our own opinions. Mine based on the CDC, and research done by the people I work with (Doctors, Nurses, etc). Your opinions come from your sources. We are going to have to agree to disagree. That is part of being American. You know, land of the free. If you really wanna be safe, you should go to Canada. They are giving into the fear, might be the place to go.

I will post some more sources. However, you're calling a Nobel Prize winner in the field a quack, basically, just because he is quoted in a couple of websites that may or may not be of questionable nature. Of course, if they have an agenda of some sort (I am not really familiar with either of the two sites that quoted him, I just relayed the articles...), they will quote the people that support that agenda. Their credibility, or lack thereof, shouldn't necessarily impugn his.

The same site that I think you are dismissing as a quack conspiracy site now has a second Nobel Prize winner in a related field (physiology or medicine) that supports Christie's in-home quarantines, but not hospital quarantines.

"However, Doherty did favor Christie’s plan to require in-home quarantine for those healthcare workers exposed to Ebola but not showing any symptoms such as fever."

That's two Nobel Prize winners in Medicine or Physiology that are choosing cautious quarantine regimens, and at least the first admits that one reason is because we do not have the data to show who is infectious at what stages. Some of our evidence is based on Macaques that were injected, which may have different rates of transmittance than humans, as well as the site of infection being important, as well. More on that, later.

Still, all I hear as evidence from you are the doctors from work, and the CDC. Better make sure that doctor from work was not an osteopath, or Chump will dismiss him. The CDC has already screwed the pooch so many times and is scrubbing/"revising" their websites, it's Keystone Cop-ish. The recent testimony was in itself contradictory.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/christies_ebola_quarantine_policy_questioned_by_no bel_laureate_as_debate_intensifies.html

Of course, Chump will dismiss this Nobel Prize Winner's opinion, too, because he got his Nobel Prize before 1996, rendering it meaningless. His current work in immunology, etc, irrelevant because he is quoted by a site Chump finds inferior.

[littlecoyotecoin]

You may be overreacting.

Highly unlikely. Not surprisingly, you confuse an interest in the topic as some sort of fear. My life won't change much more from this than it did from the AIDS epidemic. I made it though that quite bountifully. In an off chance, I may even profit from the over-reaction that will come. Mixed feelings.

[littlecoyotecoin]

The point is no one knows much about this disease or if it mutates - why not be safe than sorry. The states are willing to pay each person whatever they would earn at their job. Stay home, read, enjoy a 3 week vacation courtesy of the state. Why risk even the possibility of developing a fever while on a subway and infecting others. The ever changing CDC protocols:

Close contact is defined as being for a prolonged period of time while not wearing appropriate PPE within approximately 3 feet (1 meter) of a person with Ebola while the person was symptomatic i.e. subjective fever or measured temperature ≥100.4°F/38°C OR any of the following:*

severe headache
muscle pain
vomiting
diarrhea
stomach pain
unexplained bruising or bleeding

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/exposure/monitoring-and-movement-of-persons-with-exposure.html

Who really knows whether a 100.3 or a 100.4 fever is contagious? The true test is whether you're (or your spouse/children) willing to sit beside an infected person and risk them sneezing on you. It is not worth the risk when they can easily stay home. This nurse is just seeking attention with her lawsuit, etc. - the common sense thing to do is relax at home for 3 weeks. The CDC has changed its stance on ebola being transmitted through droplets, and as the NY Post reports: [3]

The city's first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said. Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment -- and didn't admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_ebola_transmission_cdc_quackery_aerosolized _particles.html#ixzz3HqMaezGT

The safest route is to do what Australia and Canada have done - ban travel from Ebola countries. What I don't get is that the military is undergoing 3 week isolation/quarantine before coming back to the States. If the troops have to do it, why not the general population (especially health care workers who have worked closely with Ebola patients). After all, the troops are only supposed to be setting up hospitals and beds but they do the 3 week isolation.

The military is inherently conservative. Plan for the worst, hope for the best, etc. They don't have to worry about votes and legacy, etc. It is totally hypocritical and contradictory that the troops will be doing it, but others coming from the hot zones will not be. You are right to be confused by the mixed message. We should let those thousands of troops mingle. That would be the right thing to do ;) I am sure that will not increase the overall rate of transmission at all if we adopt a general policy like that, letting people from hot zones mingle freely and self-report. I mean, they do that in Africa.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Well if he shit blood into anyone's mouth while bowling, we're all going to die.

Now you're arguing a different point. You're implying that it would difficult to get, which is an entirely different matter. I will redirect to the initial claims that an asymptomatic person can't transmit it, not that if they are asymptomatic it's MORE DIFFICULT to transmit, which is mostly true.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/07/27/ebola-outbreak-in-west-africa-some-basic-information/

"CNN reported at one point that you can get Ebola only after a person is symptomatic, and (in the same story) at any time a person is infected even if they are not symptomatic. It is probably the case that as long as Ebola is in a person’s system, they can spread it."

Make sure to blast this guy as a conspiracy quack, instead of a Harvard professor and biological anthropologist that has worked in the Congo for several years.

http://www.amazon.com/Greg-Laden/e/B009ROI5JI

More to come, only because you asked for them.

[ChumpDumper]

Now you're arguing a different point. You're implying that it would difficult to get, which is an entirely different matter. I will redirect to the initial claims that an asymptomatic person can't transmit it, not that if they are asymptomatic it's MORE DIFFICULT to transmit, which is mostly true.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/07/27/ebola-outbreak-in-west-africa-some-basic-information/

"CNN reported at one point that you can get Ebola only after a person is symptomatic, and (in the same story) at any time a person is infected even if they are not symptomatic. It is probably the case that as long as Ebola is in a person’s system, they can spread it."

Make sure to blast this guy as a conspiracy quack, instead of a Harvard professor and biological anthropologist that has worked in the Congo for several years.

http://www.amazon.com/Greg-Laden/e/B009ROI5JI

More to come, only because you asked for them.Well then it's even less likely someone is going to shit blood in someone else's mouth.

Nice.

[ViceCity86]

:lmao Not paying attention.

:lmao Trying to make a smug joke that makes absolutely no sense.

Africans ate bushmeat chimps which turned into Aids in humans.

[tholdren]

Africa sucks

[Skull-1]

Sad.

"In a move that puts Canada at odds with the World Health Organization, the federal government said Friday it is suspending the issuance of visas for residents and nationals of countries with "widespread and persistent-intense transmission" of Ebola virus disease. As well, work on permanent residence applications for people from the affected countries is also being suspended...

An international law expert denounced the move, saying it was a violation of the International Health Regulations, which Canada helped to draft in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak. And David Fidler, of Indiana University, said the decisions of Canada and Australia to close their doors to the citizens of the affected countries threatens to further undermine the IHR, as the treaty is called."

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-won-t-issue-visas-to-residents-of-countries-with-widespread-ebola-1.2081402#ixzz3Hmyzda1X

Giving into the fear.


Not sad. Smart. Along with New Zealand and Australia.

Fook the WHO and the UN and all the one world globalist morons. A nation has a right to protect its self-interests and the safety of its citizens from outside threats.

Bravo Canada! Good to see at least SOME nations (including half a dozen in West Africa, btw) understand the first rule of epidemiology. :tu :tu

[littlecoyotecoin]

Now, is the Associated Press a charlatan, right-wing, conspiracy website, or can I post a link from them?

When they report the scientists running simulations, and arriving at this number, are they fear-mongering and over-reacting when their simulations arrive at a number far greater than one that I would have guessed at?

Best case scenario 1-2 more in 2014, to a worst case scenario of 130 by the end of the year. Most likely every major city will see a handful of cases by the end of the year. That's what a group of top infectious disease experts say.

Not fear mongering me, who would have guessed a worst-case scenario at about 10-20, maybe.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EBOLA_HOW_BAD_CAN_IT_GET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-01-10-25-24

[ChumpDumper]

Handfuls!

[gospursgojas]

I thought only black people get it

[Skull-1]

Nothing to see here, move along...racists. You don't want to bleed to death out of your every organ? What are you, a bigot?

http://americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/understanding_obamas_ebola_psychosis.html

[Spurminator]

Nothing to see here

Correct.

[littlecoyotecoin]

:lmao Not paying attention.

:lmao Trying to make a smug joke that makes absolutely no sense.

You three or four guys probably don't want to read anymore, but you begged for them and I'll keep supplying them...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-scientists-uncertainties-loom-ebolas-transmission-other-key-003751718--finance.html

"(Reuters) - Even as government officials express confidence that researchers know the key facts about Ebola, many questions crucial to preventing an outbreak in the United States remain unanswered, scientists told a workshop at the National Academy's Institute of Medicine in Washington on Monday."

"Virtually all the unknowns have practical consequences, participants emphasized, making it foolish and perhaps dangerous to base policy on weak science."

"But penetration through intact skin has not been definitively ruled out, said hemorrhagic-fever expert Thomas Ksiarek of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), who co-led a session on Ebola's transmission routes."

"Another crucial question is whether the virus can be spread by people who do not show symptoms. For months public officials in the United States and elsewhere have insisted it cannot.


But the possibility of such "subclinical transmission" remains very much open, said Dr. Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah.


Nor do experts know whether the infectious dose of virus depends on how it enters the body, Pavia said.

Etc, etc. Many, many more to come.

I will repeat the claims from you guys...

Claim 1: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that the nurse did not need to be in quarantine..." Thus far, you have several that agree she should be in quarantine, one Nobel Prize winner that agreed with Christie, and a second Nobel Prize winner that agreed that she should be in home quarantine, but not at a hospital, as well as several other less prominent people that agree (not all I have shared with you as of yet...)

Claim 2: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that aysmptomatic individuals are non-infectious." Here's yet another, in addition to those that I have supplied (and more that are yet to come), from Reuters via Yahoo source from a doctor of infectious diseases that tells you outright that the science to make that claim is far from definitive. Maybe he got his degree before 2000, so Chump will throw him out with the two Nobel Prize winners. Or, maybe because he is chief of PEDIATRIC infectious diseases, he'll be dismissed by you guys. He seemed to be important to be attending the conference in Washington, but I guess you guys have higher standards.

I have no agenda, political, or otherwise. I am just interested in the science, and know that, unfortunately, those two claims were false from the get-go. I have no problem being wrong. I was wrong about the federal judge's ruling, but should have not been so confident a federal judge would back a state decision when it was adversarial to the federal position. Politics got in the way, even though in their decision they concluded she was "some risk". In a different environment, that risk may have been deemed enough to uphold. But, it wasn't in this environment. I was wrong about that, and feel I should have known better. However, that really isn't about the science, but a judge's interpretation of it...

Science that scientists are not in agreement about.

Science that, if you have any shred of integrity, you will have to admit is not as cut and dried as you were claiming, and I am hardly done with citing sources or examples of differing opinions from people in the field.

[Cry Havoc]

You three or four guys probably don't want to read anymore, but you begged for them and I'll keep supplying them...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-scientists-uncertainties-loom-ebolas-transmission-other-key-003751718--finance.html

"(Reuters) - Even as government officials express confidence that researchers know the key facts about Ebola, many questions crucial to preventing an outbreak in the United States remain unanswered, scientists told a workshop at the National Academy's Institute of Medicine in Washington on Monday."

"Virtually all the unknowns have practical consequences, participants emphasized, making it foolish and perhaps dangerous to base policy on weak science."

"But penetration through intact skin has not been definitively ruled out, said hemorrhagic-fever expert Thomas Ksiarek of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), who co-led a session on Ebola's transmission routes."

"Another crucial question is whether the virus can be spread by people who do not show symptoms. For months public officials in the United States and elsewhere have insisted it cannot.


But the possibility of such "subclinical transmission" remains very much open, said Dr. Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah.


Nor do experts know whether the infectious dose of virus depends on how it enters the body, Pavia said.

Etc, etc. Many, many more to come.

I will repeat the claims from you guys...

Claim 1: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that the nurse did not need to be in quarantine..." Thus far, you have several that agree she should be in quarantine, one Nobel Prize winner that agreed with Christie, and a second Nobel Prize winner that agreed that she should be in home quarantine, but not at a hospital, as well as several other less prominent people that agree (not all I have shared with you as of yet...)

Claim 2: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that aysmptomatic individuals are non-infectious." Here's yet another, in addition to those that I have supplied (and more that are yet to come), from Reuters via Yahoo source from a doctor of infectious diseases.

I have no agenda, political, or otherwise. I am just interested in the science, and know that, unfortunately, those two claims were false from the get-go. I have no problem being wrong. I was wrong about the Federal judge's ruling, but should have not been so confident a federal judge would back a state decision when it was adversarial the the federal position. Politics got in the way, even though in their decision they concluded she was "some risk". In a different environment, that risk may have been deemed enough to uphold. But, it wasn't. I was wrong about that, and feel I should have known better. However, that really isn't about the science, but a judge's interpretation of it...

Science that, if you have any shred of integrity, you will have to admit is not as cut and dried as you were claiming, and I am hardly done with citing sources or examples of differing opinions from people in the field.

Non-science is not science.

Your example of "proof" is a bunch of completely nebulous claims with no science behind them. No research. No case studies. Not a single verifiable shred of evidence. Just a few isolated claims of "possibility". Not so much as a single patient that has ever been demonstrated to transmit the virus while being asymptomatic.

Odd that you would, as a scientist, contradict the CDC and WHO without offering ANY kind of medical explanation or detailed information. Where is the explanation by which this might occur? It seems to have been left out of this article.

But I will congratulate you on posting your first relevant link from a non-conspiracy website. Definitely a step up in grade for you.

[Cry Havoc]

Chump, myself, and others have asked you for ANY scientific data you have to counter that, and you have provided none.

Still waiting on that data! Surely such a highly infectious disease that can be transmitted through the air or perhaps even telepathically would be spreading in the US like wildfire, given that 4 people have come to the States with the deadly virus.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Non-science is not science.

Your example of "proof" is a bunch of completely nebulous claims with no science behind them. No research. No case studies. Not a single verifiable shred of evidence. Just a few isolated claims of "possibility". Not so much as a single patient that has ever been demonstrated to transmit the virus while being asymptomatic.

Odd that you would, as a scientist, contradict the CDC and WHO without offering ANY kind of medical explanation or detailed information. Where is the explanation by which this might occur? It seems to have been left out of this article.

But I will congratulate you on posting your first relevant link from a non-conspiracy website. Definitely a step up in grade for you.

You don't know what a CLAIM is. The CDC is the one making the broad, sweeping claim. A claim that smacks a LOT of scientists in the face. They are the ones that should be providing proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The same proof you want from me, they don't have to give you? It doesn't really exist, as is being stated by scientist after scientist you choose to ignore.

While you wait in your ivory tower for me to bring you proof, you have provided what, exactly? Nothing. I have provided several articles to your none. All you warts have bothered to do is sit back and shoot down Nobel Prize winners because you don't like the websites that reported their opinions on the matter. You need to impugn the two Nobel Prize winners, not the website that reported what they said. Attack THEIR credibility. Why should I not have any respect for THEIR opinions? Are they suffering dementia? Have they publish other false claims? Are they drug addicts? They are both currently employed in their field, one working at a university in a wing that is named after him. I could care less the websites that reported what they said. Meaningless to me, unless you are saying that they are not of those opinions, which are in line with just about every other person of not I can find. Are the Nobel Prize winners cooks? If "Above Top Secret" posts a clip of President Obama making a speech, does that some way invalidate the speech, because a questionable website reported it? I just don't follow your logic. For good reason.

Your smugness is so disproportionate to your understanding.

You have an issue with me not showing you enough proof for my claim (I'm not making much of one.) I am just saying that there isn't very good proof for THEM to make that claim, and it just sounds patently ridiculous. Also, I have quoted an author, biological anthropologist, and Harvard Professor that spent years in the Congo that says what sounds reasonable, That "...as long as the virus is in your system, you can probably transmit the disease..." (Of course, you didn't bother to read this, as you are still trying to impugn the Nobel Prize winner website, totally glossing over the other links). This is reasonable, and is what EVERY virologist, epidemiologist, biochemist, doctor of infection disease, etc seems to say even though I don't need them to say it because, again, that is extremely reasonable to assume. What the CDC is claiming is what is not only unreasonable, it's just flat out wrong. They're over-simplifying it for mass consumption. But, you don't hold the CDC to the same standard when they are making a massive claim without any data. You know the reason they don't show any data, and I have not shown much yet? There isn't much. I am going to show you some. It might be a few days, or a week. I'm kind of busy, and educating you isn't my highest priority. If you want to live in ignorance, there is little that I can do about that. I will get around to posting more of what I have, though. On my own schedule. But, your dumb ass making these posts like you are "waiting and waiting" for me to prove something to you is ridiculous. I may not be able to enlighten you when I try. That is my failure. However, I am definitely not obligated.

You ignore that one of the claims was that "Scientists were in lock-step that Ebola could not be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals." I have shown you several scientists that are not in agreement with that. You have shown nothing more than a blanket statement from the CDC, etc that says: "Ebola can only be transmitted by those showing symptoms." Or, something to that effect. That is not science. That is a public address. Nothing more. You don't need a study to prove that scientists are not in lock step...you just need to show scientists that are not in lock step. I have done that. And, there are plenty more.

There is very little data, that is why there are so many scientists that have a problem with the CDC's claim, including the ones that I just showed you convening in Washington to discuss it. How does that not refute that claim, that all of the scientists are in lock-step agreement about that? What more data would you need for that if you were not just being an insufferable twit that just wants to be right, instead of understand? It should be clear to just about anyone, that there is disagreement about that claim. I have hardly given any of my opinions, just stated the opinions of other scientists. Again, what have you provided except that blanket statement that I sometimes see copied verbatim on state and local websites? It isn't data, it's just a claim by the CDC, that others say there is no science to back up. You want me to show you science that doesn't exist, yet you accept the claim by the CDC that is making the claim based on science that doesn't exist.

The reason that there has never been shown an asymptomatic case that was transferred is because there is almost no data.

One of the studies that is available on transmittance comes from macaques. It's not even human data, so what it shows can only give us an idea of what MIGHT or could maybe, PROBABLY be the case for transmittance in humans. The people that get Ebola already had it when we find them. We don't know exactly how they got it in most cases. We are trying to figure that out. We aren't allowed to infect humans. With this recent outbreak, we are amassing a lot more data than we have had in the past. It is a gruesome benefit to having so many sick, dead, and dying. But, that is recent. I am sure we will know a lot more about it in a year than we do today.

What I would really like, at this point, for you to prove your stupidity to me, is to get a blood transfusion from someone that is infected with Ebola, but is 12 hours pre-symptomatic.

Or, get butt-fucked by a dude that is 30 days post-symptomatic. (Ebola remains in semen as much as 60+ days after symptoms have disappeared.)

But, since, the CDC put an utterly misleading statement on their website for layman consumption that says that asymptomatic people are incapable of transmitting the disease, I am sure you would be fine in either case.

It can be transmitted by INHALATION, unless Penn State is a conspiracy website:

http://www.engr.psu.edu/iec/abe/database/vFiloE.htm

This is different than saying it is LIKELY to be transmitted by inhalation. It's complicated. Different strains, and different hosts:

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121115/srep00811/full/srep00811.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457911001225

Those are not related to the original discussion, but just in case I make reference to them, I don't want you to claim that they are bullshit I make up.

ID50 is something you should familiarize yourself with for future discussion. ID50 for Ebola is debatable, still, I believe, then sometimes it is given a fairly small, and certain number, usually between 1-15.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

I know Canada is a conspiracy country, so, trust me, there are plenty of other sites that report ID50 at approximately that same number. Seeing as some droplets have .5-1-2 million organisms, I don't think we need to quibble over 5 or 10.

I need to edit this, but leaving it redundant will save me a lot of time, and redundancy is something that you may benefit from, it seems.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Still waiting on that data! Surely such a highly infectious disease that can be transmitted through the air or perhaps even telepathically would be spreading in the US like wildfire, given that 4 people have come to the States with the deadly virus.

You're straying from the initial points, and just generally being stupid, here. If you would pay more attention, I have never said that it will spread rapidly here. I have said pretty much the opposite...at one point calling it a "slow train wreck"...another time, saying the models that are being used projecting as many as 130 cases by year end seem far too extreme, to me...like by an order of magnitude. Pay attention if you are going to try to be so smug.

[littlecoyotecoin]

http://m.wsj.com/articles/for-ebola-survivors-sex-carries-added-risk-1415061018?mobile=y

Asymptomatic survivor kills her spouse. Educators in Africa warning all asymptomatic survivors what a danger they still represent.

Deadly jizz for up to 90 days after recovery (this number keeps growing).

US CDC still rolling with: You can't catch it from someone that isn't showing symptoms.

[ChumpDumper]

http://m.wsj.com/articles/for-ebola-survivors-sex-carries-added-risk-1415061018?mobile=y

Asymptomatic survivor kills her spouse. Educators in Africa warning all asymptomatic survivors what a danger they still represent.

Deadly jizz for up to 90 days after recovery (this number keeps growing).

US CDC still rolling with: You can't catch it from someone that isn't showing symptoms.

lol "perhaps"

[DocDoc]

Still waiting on that data! Surely such a highly infectious disease that can be transmitted through the air or perhaps even telepathically would be spreading in the US like wildfire, given that 4 people have come to the States with the deadly virus.

I thought we were all dead already?

[littlecoyotecoin]

lol "perhaps"

Perhaps? Whatever. Well-established. On a related note:

http://m.wsj.com/articles/the-science-vs-ebola-1414622296?mobile=y

"In this imaginary battle between reason and ignorance, real scientists don’t pretend that their understanding about an event as complex as the worst Ebola outbreak in history is infallible. The CDC is revising its own protocols on a near-weekly basis."

[littlecoyotecoin]

I thought we were all dead already?

Don't be another idiot. Who said it would be fast, or even take a significant portion of the population? AIDS doesn't, and wasn't. Neither does the flu. Black Death didn't even take a majority of the affected region, much less the global population. There is a whole lot of room between a stupid, flippant attempt at condescending humor like "I thought we were all dead already." And, a long, drawn out "slow train wreck" of a battle with this virus, possibilities ranging from minuscule if contained to a few sporadic cases, to dramatic, especially financially, if the flare-up in the US becomes even just slightly more severe.

There's even a name for your particular brand of logical flaw: The excluded middle.