Ebola could become an STD

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/let-s-talk-about-ebola-survivors-and-sex/

Maybe the ‘next AIDs’ comments weren’t so far off.
Although I should point out that the regular transmission shouldn’t change (droplets, non-sexual fluids inc. sweat), but it would function exactly as if it were an STD-native from a recovering/recovered carrier without quarantine.

People are surviving the disease. Doctors Without Borders, which oversees many Ebola clinics in west Africa, is sending home recovered Ebola patients with a stack of condoms, and health workers are urging them to only engage in protected sex for at least three months after recovery. The virus has been found in the semen and vaginal fluids of convalescents for weeks or even months after symptoms of Ebola have abated, setting off concern that the virus could be spread via sexual contact with otherwise healthy individuals. In men, one study found that Ebola continued to persist in semen for 90 days. U.S. health officials are echoing this caution as a small number of patients have been released from American hospitals.

…So why the “safe sex” warning when thousands of patients have survived Ebola and may have gone on to have sex, apparently without infecting their partners? Extreme caution is not an overreaction with this disease. Studies by Bausch and others have also detected live Ebola virus in sexual fluids that can successfully grow in cell culture, suggesting it could also lead to infections in other individuals. It is possible that sexually transmitted Ebola may have flown under the radar because there has been a dearth of data from outbreaks in years past. Also, although extremely unlikely, it is possible that mild Ebola—with very minor symptoms that were not recognized as such—has developed in patients’ sexual partners. Thus, the CDC warns that convalescing patients must either abstain from intercourse and oral sex for three months or use condoms for that entire time.

But what about fairly innocent stuff like kissing?
Where do you draw the line here?

With any infectious disease, when patients have a high viral load in their bodily fluids, it increases the risk they will pass disease to someone else through direct contact with those fluids. With HIV, for example, the risk of passing the disease between partners increases with higher viral load: For every 10-fold increase in viral concentration, one 2012 study suggests there is about a threefold increase in the risk of transmission per sexual act. And with HIV, condoms are a highly effective mode of blocking disease transmission because the virus is primarily spread via contact with sexual fluids or blood.

As with HIV, when Ebola progresses, a patient’s viral loads inch upward and that boosts the chance of disease transmission via contact with bodily fluids. Moreover, a certain degree of natural immunological protection for certain body parts—the central nervous system, eyes and gonads—makes it difficult for virus to exit those bodily parts, which may lead to the virus continuing to be present even after the virus was cleared from the blood, according to Bausch. And if an Ebola patient’s disease proves fatal, his viral load at death is particularly high, which boosts the risk of contracting the disease from interacting with the corpse.

Like backward funerary rituals that led to other outbreaks like Kuru?

Ebola virus manages to thrive in a variety of bodily fluids. It is found in its highest concentrations in blood, vomit and feces. But coming into direct contact with semen, vaginal fluids, saliva or even sweat could still be risky while a patient is symptomatic. (Although it’s not likely patients in the throes of illness would be engaging in sex. And live Ebola virus, according to WHO, has never been isolated in human sweat.) Just how infectious those fluids may be after recovery, however, remains a series of question marks. Studies in this area have been extremely small and continue to be largely inconclusive. Thus far, there are no recorded cases of sexual transmission of Ebola. With more than 13,500 cases currently in west Africa right now, however, public health officials do not want to take any chances.

I hate being right.

 

Renaming autism in the name of scientific fraud

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/10/weekly-wrap-renaming-autism-wont-work-forever.html

“But get this quote that the authors of the law review article got from David Bowman, a spokesman for the Health Resources and Services Administration:
The court “has not compensated any cases based upon autism alone in the absence of sudden serious brain illness after vaccination,” he wrote in an email.”

red dwarf mr flibble game over boys evil puppet
That’s like saying we have ice but it isn’t water.

You’ve got to be freaking kidding me! Our whole argument is that serious brain illness – encephalopathy, about which vaccine manufacturers warn in their official product labels – leads to the behavioral syndrome called “autism.” So how is compensating autism following “sudden serious brain illness after vaccination” supposed to be a complete defense? It’s actually a signed and dated confession.

I have mentioned this before here.

For how that process could work, see here for a heavily-biological explanation. Pour yourself a drink, it’s detailed.

So, to summarize:

“Isolated” autism is not isolated – in any sense of the term, since about 1 in 68 kids in this country have it.  Thanks to William Thompson, we know on-time vaccination is a big risk.

“Idiopathic” autism (cause unknown) is not idiopathic. It doesn’t seem to show up in less vaccinated groups.

Autistic-like features following vaccination in a child with a mitochondrial anomaly does indeed add up to vaccine-induced autism.

Brain damage from vaccination that leads to autism is, in fact, vaccine-induced autism.

When are some of the smarter and more independent members of Congress, the medical profession and the mainstream media going to get with it here? Now would be good.

It’s becoming as ridiculous as man-made global warming at this point.
If you don’t know it’s fake, you don’t understand the science.
All the fake claims at this point (“herd immunity” with 99.99999999999999%, no such thing as vaccine failure, live vaccinated contagion denied) are amounting to one of the biggest frauds in history.

Also of interest —

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-i-will-not-submit-to-medical-martial-law/5409568

The greatest danger to American citizens is, in fact, not the Ebola virus, but government reactions to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of modern vaccinations.

Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.

GlaxoSmithKline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their products or outright lying about their effectiveness. Glaxo was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. Glaxo has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.

It is important to point out that Glaxo is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.

From that prior link, here’s the hippy BS they defend it with, even though it’s been debunked.

Herd Immunity: Biss says that mass vaccination can be far more effective than individual vaccination through the principle of herd immunity. “The boundaries between our bodies begin to dissolve here… those of us who draw on collective immunity owe our health to our neighbors.” We have resistance to the idea of herd immunity as we don’t want to be compared to cows, but if we thought about our cooperation as more along the lines of hive immunity, or the wisdom of honeybees, perhaps we’d be more interested in community, as opposed to the lone wolf American individual, a loaded metaphor these days.

I can’t begin to explain how wrong that is on a legal or moral level.

Thoroughly debunked folk theory. (Hence the decimal point joke above).

When measles failed to be eradicated, public health experts decided that a 70% or 75% vaccination rate would secure herd immunity. When that proved wrong, the magic number rose to 80%, 83%, 85%, and then it became 90%, according to a 2001 Health Services Research report. Later health experts commonly cited 95%.

But that too was insufficient — measles outbreaks occur even when the vaccinated population exceeds 95%, leading some to say a 98% or 99% vaccination rate is needed to protect the remaining 1% or 2% of the herd. But even that may fall short, since outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated populations.

Huh, so, disease still happens when you vaccinate everyone…. what’s the point of vaccinating, again?

Article: The Prophecy of Ebola-Chan

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/10/21/the-prophecy-of-ebola-chan

Ebola-Chan may be about trolling, or about racism, screwing with the media, or all of the above. But more than anything, Our Lady of the Boiling Organs is about simple exhaustion with racial egalitarianism and PC tokenism. No matter what happens in Africa or anywhere else, it’s always our fault—so screw it. Let it all fall apart. The people in charge don’t care that they are killing us anyway. And they don’t really care about the people in the Third World—they only care about being seen trying to help and proving how great they are.

Our government treats our own lives and country like a joke—why not treat a Third World plague the same way? And when all is said and done, why should we care about what happens in Africa when expressing concern about what happens in your own country or even your own children turns you into an Enemy of Polite Society?

This is Ebola-Chan btw.

Serious image is serious.

 

British preppers are having the last laugh

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-preppers-amid-ebola-islamic-state-ukraine-russia-crises-these-survivalists-are-ready-1470354

The walls of society are falling down. After months of geopolitical crises tearing through every region, the global economy has seized up and there are supply shortages of everything: food, water, energy. News comes through that riots are breaking out across the UK. What would you do?

John Bland knows exactly what he would do because he is a “prepper”. Preppers are, as the nickname suggests, prepared. To them the collapse of society is not probable, but it is still possible. So they prepare for it in all ways, from boning up on survival skills to having fully stocked bunkers….

….

Hart says one of the most common concerns he finds among preppers in Britain is not necessarily a natural disaster, or the spread of disease. It’s economic.

“As a general rule, because in the UK we’re an island so we’re relatively isolated from a lot of things, but again information plays a big part in this, people can see what’s going on globally. There’s always been your terrorist type of threat, the nuclear threat, the biochemical threat – there’s always these sorts of things looming in the background,” he says.

“But I would say, interestingly enough, from what I know regarding the prepping scene in the UK, it’s more financial collapse. One of the number one things people consider is something that would bring the world to its knees.”….

well done damn bloody well good job IT Crowd

BBC scared of own guests [Ebola risk]

link here

…”We have make-up artists who are saying, ‘Hang on, these people are just turning up in our chair. They have just come in from Guinea. Do I want to be touching them?’ Which is not unreasonable.”…

The BBC is currently not allowing some guests from virus-hit regions into its buildings, instead interviewing them by Skype or phone, but has denied putting a blanket ban in place.

A spokesman said: “There is no ban in place and people who do not have symptoms are allowed into BBC buildings.

“Where people have been exposed to the virus but have not registered with public health authorities we recommend interviews take place by telephone or video phone.”

red dwarf leaflet campaign hipster taking the piss

 

Ebola workers need respiratory protection, but it can’t be airborne, right?

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

Highlights;

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

There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed “droplet” and “contact.”

These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) “direct” contact with the body fluids of an infected person. [DS: “must have”, comforting]

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity [CDC paper] to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.4

…Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data….

Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed “airborne”) can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. [DS: touchable surfaces do not exist, apparently] Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large “droplets” on their face, eyes, or nose.

Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.

As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.

The current paradigm also assumes that only “small” particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site.

It’s time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal tract.

We recommend using “aerosol transmissible” rather than the outmoded terms “droplet” or “airborne” to describe pathogens that can transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.

…Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.

Some pathogens are limited in the cell type and location they infect. …

HIV infects T-helper cells in the lymphoid tissues and is primarily a bloodborne pathogen with low probability for transmission via aerosols. [Throwaway Q: What’s to stop it hooking up with HIV or some other virus?]

Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract.

…Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. (e.g.)…The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses. Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.

…..These rates indicate that 99% loss in aerosol infectivity would occur in 93, 104, and 162 minutes, respectively. [DS: I feel comforted, do you feel comforted?]

…In still air, 3-mcm particles can take up to an hour to settle. With air currents, these and smaller particles can be transported considerable distances before they are deposited on a surface…. There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route.

Zaire Ebola viruses have also been transmitted in the absence of direct contact among pigs25 and from pigs to non-human primates,26 which experienced lung involvement [sweet term] in infection. Persons with no known direct contact with Ebola virus disease patients or their bodily fluids have become infected.12

[sum: Direct transmission is direct]…However, the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems are not complete barriers to Ebola virus. Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols. …Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission.28 That is, other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.

As for public protection:

Facemasks, however, do not offer protection against inhalation of small infectious aerosols, because they lack adequate filters and do not fit tightly against the face.1 Therefore, a higher level of protection is necessary.

Why not disinfect, you ask?

For a risk group 4 organism, any activity that has the potential for aerosolizing liquid body fluids, such as medical or disinfection procedures, should be avoided, if possible. Our risk assessment indicates that a PAPR with a full facepiece (APF = 50) or a hood or helmet (APF = 25) would be a better choice for patient care during epidemic conditions.

They’re beginning to treat it like a risk group 4 (the highest).

Wearing this type of respirator minimizes the need for other types of PPE, such as head coverings and goggles.

But hey, The Guardian said not to worry about it.

The Guardian: Expect British Ebola cases, it’s like, no big deal

I was paraphrasing of course, but I wouldn’t say the airport checks are a waste of time, though.
Travellers, beware. I’d take a face mask per flight, since it does transmit via the air [CDC buried footnote].

Look at the conflicting messages;

The first Ebola cases will soon emerge in the UK according to the government’s chief medical officer, who said the country should expect “a handful” of people to fall ill with the disease in coming months.

Dame Sally Davies issued her warning on Saturday following a national exercise to test Britain’s readiness for an Ebola outbreak amid growing criticism that government priorities for dealing with the threat are seriously misplaced.

…Despite the predicted spread, Dr David Nabarro, the UN’s senior system coordinator for Ebola, told the BBC’s Up All Night on Sunday morning that he believed the disease would be “under control” in three months.

Headless chickens.

Professor David Mabey, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said screening would be futile. “There won’t be anyone coming from these [west African] countries because all direct flights have been cancelled,” he said. “Are they going to screen everyone from Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam? That would lead to a lot of delays and disruption.”

This point was supported by virologist Dr Ben Neuman of Reading University, who said there was no “strong scientific case that airport screening will help keep Ebola out of the UK”. Professor Tom Solomon, Liverpool University’s head of infection and global health, said evidence “suggests such measures won’t make a large difference”.

It’s an immigration check, of course they disapprove.
And the solution? More money to Africa, a solution which has never ever worked for anything wrong there, ever.

The rest is foreign aid BS since their budgets will be cut soon and they sense the chop, but watch, the most liberal lefty readers of all are waking up;

How can we help? This outbreak will eventually be contained, partially using Western money and expertise, but another will follow. How can we alter the cultural (tribal) practises of the communities in Africa that originally transfer the virus from fruit bats by eating them, and then spread it due to their complete lack of education, their incredibly primitive spiritual beliefs and mistrust of modern medicine?

Corpses of Ebola victims are washed. Then custom dictates the living relatives wash in the same water. We can’t change this without the kind of social engineering and cultural imperialism that would be heavily condemned by everyone here.

There is nothing that can be done to eradicate Ebola without the willing participation of those that have spread the virus originally. It will be down to ‘big pharma’ to develop and produce vaccines, and up to us to pay for it in order that millions of Africans will receive it. The cheapest and safest option for a selfish nation would be to close the borders to African nationals, but that didn’t happen when AIDS spread to Europe, and it won’t happen now.

Were you impressed? Because I was.

And the likes of;

Looks like Bilderberg population control target may be overachieved this year.
_

I think it is to be seen to do something, re-assuring the public, but I agree with the experts that such measures are futile.
_
Maybe the screening plan is not 100% perfect, but even so, better than nothing. If it cuts down the numbers of infected people it cuts down the odds of infection for many.
_

What we “expect” and what we get has a good chance of being miles apart.
Do I believe what the government’s chief medical officer tells us?

Nope.

Who wants to tell them AIDS kills more people every day?

 

Ebola-struck volunteer is flown in to Hampstead, London

— where almost all the liberals live.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/24/briton-with-ebola-flown-home-sierra-leone

sherlock bbc cracking up lol laughing so hard
Did he think it was like chickenpox?

Wait, there’s more;

A healthcare worker who is the first Briton confirmed to have tested positive for the Ebola virus was flown to London on Sunday for treatment after being evacuated from Sierra Leone on an RAF plane.

taxpayer money

The Department of Health said he was “not currently seriously unwell” in a statement issued shortly after the C-17 aircraft took off from Freetown for RAF Northolt in west London where it landed at 9pm.

they’re trying to downplay how contagious he is

The man was expected to be taken to the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead, London, which has an isolation unit where he can be treated.

a building full of people with compromised immune systems with a Class A infectious bioterror agent, positioned in one of the most densely populated and connected capital cities in the entire world, what could go wrong?

The man, who lives in Sierra Leone, had been volunteering at an Ebola clinic in the Kenema district in the east of the country.

he chose to be there, we should have left him

“We have robust, well-developed and well-tested NHS systems for managing unusual infectious diseases when they arise, supported by a wide range of experts,” he said.

Let’s hear from one –

Dr Paul Cosford, the director for health protection at Public Health England, said protective measures will be maintained to minimise the risk of transmitting the virus. “For Ebola to be transmitted from one person to another, contact with blood or other body fluids is needed and, as such, the risk to the general population remains very low,” he said.

Factually, that is bullshit. As the CDC recently admitted, being in the same room is sufficient. Some expert.

It ends

At Freetown airport passengers arriving and departing have to wash their hands twice, have their temperature taken and fill in a form.

Yes, I’m sure that will help.