Ebola--Authoritative Information
there's a lot of nonsense floating around this website about Ebola. One other post has it that the CDC is preventing the diagnosis with a PCR setup. False. My URL from CDC shows a good PCR setup. To get real CDC/MD info visit this website
Harry M
Harry M
Their statement of "no significant risk" is vague. Even a rare disease is significant to to the people directly affected. You said if claims thousands of lives it's a significant risk. Influenza would qualify. Malaria would qualify but might be excluded b/c I don't think it spreads well in our climate. Alcoholism would certainly qualify, although you might exclude that b/c it can be prevented just by never trying alcohol. I wonder if rabies should be included b/c it has such a high mortality rate.
I think what they're saying is they're so no evidence yet it's an historic pandemic like AIDS or bubonic plague. As you said, you recall AIDS and know pandemics will happen again. I agree. We just don't know what they'll be.
1st it states that Ebola can only be transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluid and not through the air. That simply does not make sense. When a person sneezes saliva can travel some distance through the air. This can then be inhaled which is direct contact with a bodily fluid. The fluid from the sneeze can also be deposited on door handles, food in the grocery store or a hundred other things that people touch or eat which gives direct contact with bodily fluid.
2nd is the idea that washing you hands with any product will stop a person from getting the virus. If that is the case why are people that deal with Ebola sick patients in full body protection? And then why do they need to go though such a vigerious decontamination process using a very strong solution of chlorine? Why are these people not simply washing up with antibacterial soap?
These are just a couple of the things that do not make sense and are sending a message to me that someone is not telling the whole story. I don't buy this.
I am not at all knowledgeable about this, but I have always heard some diseases are transmitted only by direct contact with body fluids and others are transmitted by casual contact. I have no knowledge about whether this is true, but I've heard this model applied to many diseases.
Think harder. We've had the HIV/AIDS epidemic >30 years. There's no transmission through air. Alternatively, the flu virus is transmitted through the air .
Cleaning. The above are viruses. Not bacteria. Antibacterials won't work against viruses. Bleach works against viruses. They use full body protection to prevent body fluid contact and because ebola is so bad with such contact.
Harry M
In your reply to me you told me to “think harder” and I am sorry to have given you the impression that I did not think hard about this. It appears that you are much smarter than I but if that is the case why is it that I can find the info to substantiate my position, that what we are being told does not make sense. I am not claiming to be an expert because the fact is I do not know the answer. That is why I asked what your qualifications were. I want to learn, the truth.
You will notice that both of the links below come from government web sites. I think the information speaks for itself but if you need clarification on why the info you provided does not make sense to me simply ask.
Ebola
blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmissio...
How Do You Get HIV?
Certain body fluids from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV.
These body fluids are:
• Blood
• Semen (cum)
• Pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum)
• Rectal fluids
• Vaginal fluids
• Breast milk
http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-...
You should add that "bleach" = a strong solution of chlorine for anyone who doesn't know that.
The AMA is the basic professional organization of Physicians in the US. Our care is their responsibility. I'm not interested in comments off the top of people's heads
Besides, I have three Life Science college degrees plus. One of them is BS, Clinical Lab Science.
Harry M
Still, I used my own reasoning skills to reject the article, and I will use the same skills for anything posted on the CDC or AMA website. I might believe them more readily, being they are normally reliable sources, but I question everything,
And you certainly can’t fault anyone in our current political climate of being overly suspicious of any intention of a government agencies. (IRS, ATF, DOJ for example) A lot of horribly inappropriate things have been happening over the last few years. Many government agencies have given the word “authoritative” a bad name. Most of us are waiting for the CDC to start talking about gun control as if it is a disease, since the current government has been wasting a great deal of money trying to research that angle. You see my point?
Anyway, you got words off the top of my head whether you liked it or not. I hope you don’t mind.;)
you can't smear the whole government with the brush that they engage in questionable activities.
I'll let the gun control argument rest. The one I don't like is "obesity is an epidemic" Obesity is a lack of control and failure of individual responsibility as Randian concepts indicate.
Harry M
Their care is the practitioners, not the patients. Think union, they are a lobbying group. Not a scientific research organization.
Believe them if you like, but their authoritativeness is no more than a collection of white coats that may or may not be competent on the subject being addressed. Like any other professional association.
The AMA is the basic professional organization of Physicians in the US. Our care is their responsibility."
Knowledge by authority is tricky. We can't blindly accept all esteemed authorities. We can't nihilistically doubt all authorities and refuse to accept things like authoritative tables of materials properties.
If we really want to dig into it, we have to follow footnotes, read at the abstracts of the citations, and possibly ask questions of someone in the field who knows the jargon.
In the end, our care is our own responsibility.
I agree with you, though, that we don't need to dig in on this. My non-bioligist understanding is that life is a balance, with things like mold and bacteria competing for existence. When we discovered using mold's weapon against bacteria, the bacteria mutated to resist it. So humans have to come up with something new. I imagine something similar might happen with anti-viral agents. We should be aware of this but not wring our hands waiting for history's next cataclysm. There's a whole industry looking at every little development in technology, biology, politics, economics, etc, just licking its chops apparently hoping they're looking at the next human catastrophe.
Nice comments. I like "our care is our responsibility" Let me add "with the assistance of trained professionals"
I haven’t seen a doctor in thirty years. Go figure.