Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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 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- ed 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/2012/1211...srep00811.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...86457911001225
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 bull 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/r.../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.
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.
http://m.wsj.com/articles/for-ebola-...61018?mobile=y
Asymptomatic survivor kills her spouse. Educators in Africa warning all asymptomatic survivors what a danger they still represent.
Deadly 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"
I thought we were all dead already?
Perhaps? Whatever. Well-established. On a related note:
http://m.wsj.com/articles/the-scienc...22296?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."
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions