OT: Ebola - Global Pandemic?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on July 31, 2014 - 11:51am

Time to run down to home depot to pick up some masks/respirators?

Time to close the borders?

A repeat of the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1917-1918 only deadlier?

Or pure hysteria?

http://youtu.be/JnQVUf775VE

Ebola 2014

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 13, 2014 - 9:52pm.

Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

"If you're a conspiracy theorist, then you're crazy, right? That's been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. "Researchers -- psychologists and social scientists, mostly -- in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, 'conspiracy theorists' appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspi...

Submitted by zk on October 13, 2014 - 10:49pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

"If you're a conspiracy theorist, then you're crazy, right? That's been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. "Researchers -- psychologists and social scientists, mostly -- in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, 'conspiracy theorists' appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html##ixzz3G5jlph32

If you're a conspiracy theorist, I would expect an incredibly lame article like that to be enough to convince you that you're "more sane" than someone who's not a conspiracy theorist. If I thought it would do any good, I'd take the time to destroy that article sentence by sentence.

Submitted by outtamojo on October 13, 2014 - 11:16pm.

Well, they id'd the nurse/victim and she is all of 26 years old, graduated nursing school in 2010 and received her critical care nursing certification 2 months ago. When bullets start to fly, send in the noob! I bet the more experienced nurses used their experience to make themselves conveniently unavailable.

Submitted by CA renter on October 13, 2014 - 11:36pm.

zk wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:
Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

"If you're a conspiracy theorist, then you're crazy, right? That's been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. "Researchers -- psychologists and social scientists, mostly -- in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, 'conspiracy theorists' appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html##ixzz3G5jlph32

If you're a conspiracy theorist, I would expect an incredibly lame article like that to be enough to convince you that you're "more sane" than someone who's not a conspiracy theorist. If I thought it would do any good, I'd take the time to destroy that article sentence by sentence.

From what I've seen, "conspiracy theorists" tend to be right more often than not. All to often, they are ridiculed for many years before they are proven right. One should never accept the "official" version of a story until they do their own thorough and independent research. Sometimes, logic and reason are enough to disprove an "official" story.

Submitted by Coronita on October 14, 2014 - 2:40am.

outtamojo wrote:
Well, they id'd the nurse/victim and she is all of 26 years old, graduated nursing school in 2010 and received her critical care nursing certification 2 months ago. When bullets start to fly, send in the noob! I bet the more experienced nurses used their experience to make themselves conveniently unavailable.

It looks like she got a blood transfusion from Dr. Brantly, and her condition reported as stable.. So hopefully it's good news she'll survive...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 6:24am.

CA renter wrote:

From what I've seen, "conspiracy theorists" tend to be right more often than not. All to often, they are ridiculed for many years before they are proven right. One should never accept the "official" version of a story until they do their own thorough and independent research. Sometimes, logic and reason are enough to disprove an "official" story.

Really? How about some examples?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 14, 2014 - 9:51am.

Probably not one of the one's most people would think of, but this one is useful:
"More than 20 years ago journalist Edward Jay Epstein wrote the definitive expose of the diamond business, initially published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 and subsequently as a book, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. Epstein, it must be said, is a conspiracy buff, but his research on diamonds is pretty credible. His central contention is that diamonds have little inherent value; their perennially high price is solely a function of clever promotion and ruthless manipulation of the market. You ask: Isn't that true of any high-value product? Nope. Take gold, a true commodity in the sense that it's fungible, as the economists say--like quantities of gold are freely interchangeable. Gold's purity can be readily assayed and it's indestructible for practical purposes, making it a reliable store of value. Even now that the world has abandoned the gold standard, gold's price has held up well on the open market."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read...

Submitted by all on October 14, 2014 - 9:54am.

So the NBC cameraman has no health insurance and the cost of the treatment is estimated at $500K. Good thing he is recovering, he will have to film a lot to pay that bill.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 14, 2014 - 10:42am.

What about Obamacare?

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 10:49am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Probably not one of the one's most people would think of, but this one is useful:
"More than 20 years ago journalist Edward Jay Epstein wrote the definitive expose of the diamond business, initially published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 and subsequently as a book, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. Epstein, it must be said, is a conspiracy buff, but his research on diamonds is pretty credible. His central contention is that diamonds have little inherent value; their perennially high price is solely a function of clever promotion and ruthless manipulation of the market. You ask: Isn't that true of any high-value product? Nope. Take gold, a true commodity in the sense that it's fungible, as the economists say--like quantities of gold are freely interchangeable. Gold's purity can be readily assayed and it's indestructible for practical purposes, making it a reliable store of value. Even now that the world has abandoned the gold standard, gold's price has held up well on the open market."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2524/is-a-diamonds-price-a-true-measure-of-its-value

That's more of a monopoly than a conspiracy. And it's well known.

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 10:52am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
What about Obamacare?

Wow. Good answer. If, that is, you can back that up with some kind of reasonable explanation.

Submitted by Coronita on October 14, 2014 - 11:20am.

So I guess if I'm blood type O... So when it comes to plasma donation , I can receive any blood plasma type supposedly right?

:)

Submitted by all on October 14, 2014 - 11:28am.

flu wrote:
So I guess if I'm blood type O... So when it comes to plasma donation , I can receive any blood plasma type supposedly right?

:)

No. The opposite. AB is universal receiver. O is universal donor.

Submitted by outtamojo on October 14, 2014 - 12:50pm.

You got it right Flu. As a type O, you can receive any type of PLASMA.( For red cells you can only receive type O.) I forget the approximate volume, but small amounts of incompatible plasma can be tolerated so I would think that if ebola was detected early while viral load was still low, it would still be beneficial to give incompatible survivor plasma due to risk/reward scenario.

Submitted by Coronita on October 14, 2014 - 1:26pm.

all wrote:
flu wrote:
So I guess if I'm blood type O... So when it comes to plasma donation , I can receive any blood plasma type supposedly right?

:)

No. The opposite. AB is universal receiver. O is universal donor.

For blood, that is correct. For plasma, it's the opposite I believe..

And plasma transfusion is what is happening right now for ebola....

At least that is according to wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_plasma

AB is universal donor for plasma....So I assume O is the universal receiver for plasma...

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 4:09pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
For zk

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-co...

http://blog.ehealthinsurance.com/2014/10...

http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2014/August/05/opeds.aspx

Not sure what the purpose of posting those links is, Zeitgeist. Got any actual evidence of any conspiracies?

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 4:22pm.

Interesting. I had said that conspiracy theorists aren't daunted by the fact that they're basically always wrong. Fascinating to learn that that isn't the issue. The issue is that they think they're right. They need nothing but hearsay and the medicare website and a couple of tin-foil-hat radio hosts to be convinced that they're right.

Seems obvious in retrospect. It should've been obvious at the time, and I'm not sure why I'd have thought that they would have taken the lack of real evidence of previous conspiracies on the scale that they're always talking about as evidence that they're wrong.

Submitted by kev374 on October 14, 2014 - 7:22pm.

Excellent report here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZidJ36nA0

FINALLY media is admitting that it can be contracted through contaminated surfaces and the virus can survive outside for DAYS. this is a MUCH bigger risk than has been stated by the CDC which is downplaying it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/...

The problem here is that there are various "experts" all over the place stating how it is almost impossible to catch Ebola...YET... a nurse fully dressed in ridiculously protective gear got it, oh we don't know how sorry...BUT BUT It's impossible to catch..

Submitted by outtamojo on October 14, 2014 - 8:17pm.

kev374 wrote:
Excellent report here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZidJ36nA0

FINALLY media is admitting that it can be contracted through contaminated surfaces and the virus can survive outside for DAYS. this is a MUCH bigger risk than has been stated by the CDC which is downplaying it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/...

The problem here is that there are various "experts" all over the place stating how it is almost impossible to catch Ebola...YET... a nurse fully dressed in ridiculously protective gear got it, oh we don't know how sorry...BUT BUT It's impossible to catch..

What needs to be understood is how viral loads zoom to incredible highs in the last few days of a victim's life. They become literal bags of virus. It is during this time that any small slipup becomes deadly.

Submitted by outtamojo on October 14, 2014 - 8:23pm.

Looks like the CDC is starting to get it. They will fly in a team to direct things whenever an ebola case presents/confirmed, a multi fold improvement over how any hospital with an isolation ward should be able to handle Ebola. Credit to CDC head for admitting original course was wrong.

Submitted by Aecetia on October 14, 2014 - 10:11pm.

Good article from CNN. Sounds like the CDC is making changes in response to the Dallas case:

Then "the CDC was telling possible Ebola patients to 'call a doctor.' When passengers arrive in the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea, they're handed a flier instructing them to "call a doctor" if they feel ill. Never mind how hard it is to get your doctor on the phone, but even if you could, it's quite possible she'd tell you to go to the nearest emergency room or urgent care center." Now the recommendation is a toll free number, etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/health...

Submitted by zk on October 14, 2014 - 10:31pm.

kev374 wrote:

The problem here is that there are various "experts" all over the place stating how it is almost impossible to catch Ebola...YET... a nurse fully dressed in ridiculously protective gear got it, oh we don't know how sorry...BUT BUT It's impossible to catch..

The problem here is that you're making stuff up. Show me where a single expert said "it's almost impossible to catch."

Submitted by Aecetia on October 14, 2014 - 11:14pm.

zk wrote:
kev374 wrote:

The problem here is that there are various "experts" all over the place stating how it is almost impossible to catch Ebola...YET... a nurse fully dressed in ridiculously protective gear got it, oh we don't know how sorry...BUT BUT It's impossible to catch..

The problem here is that you're making stuff up. Show me where a single expert said "it's almost impossible to catch."


Will you settle for hard to catch?

Prof. Jonathan Gershoni, an expert on virology and immunology Tel Aviv University and an Israeli member of the Global Virus Network. Start with the fact that unlike some other viral conditions such as influenza, Ebola is relatively hard to catch. It isn’t airborne. It requires direct contact."

http://www.haaretz.com/life/science-medi...

Submitted by Coronita on October 15, 2014 - 3:35am.

Second case reported in Texas....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/tex...

Submitted by CA renter on October 15, 2014 - 3:50am.

flu wrote:
Second case reported in Texas....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/texas-ebola-outbreak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

From flu's link:

"Official: Duncan should have been moved

An official close to the situation says that in hindsight, Duncan should have been transferred immediately to either Emory University Hospital in Atlanta or Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Those hospitals are among only four in the country that have biocontainment units and have been preparing for years to treat a highly infectious disease like Ebola.

"If we knew then what we know now about this hospital's ability to safely care for these patients, then we would have transferred him to Emory or Nebraska," the official told CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen."

Again, something that was obvious to a lot of people who don't even work in the medical field. Something like this requires very specialized facilities and highly trained staff.

Submitted by CA renter on October 15, 2014 - 4:52am.

zk wrote:
CA renter wrote:

From what I've seen, "conspiracy theorists" tend to be right more often than not. All to often, they are ridiculed for many years before they are proven right. One should never accept the "official" version of a story until they do their own thorough and independent research. Sometimes, logic and reason are enough to disprove an "official" story.

Really? How about some examples?

"10 Nefarious Conspiracies Proven True"

http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefar...

----------

There's the story of "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't exist in Iraq.

And I'm still not convinced we've heard the end of 9/11 investigation results.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And the heavy put buying on United and American Airlines just days before 9/11. I'm offering up the rebuttal to the "conspiracy theorists" but they simply say that these traders didn't have any links to al Qaeda, which wasn't what the "conspiracy theorists" were suggesting in the first place.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

And, of course, there's the EPA telling NY residents that it was safe to breathe the air after 911 (and President Bush telling everyone in the U.S. to "go shopping"!).

"Three days after 9/11, following questionable air sampling techniques, a spokesperson for the EPA said that levels of asbestos were either at low levels, negligible, or undetectable.

“I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that the air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink,” Whitman said one week after 9/11."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/the...

And just a tiny bit of info about the infiltration and destruction of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05...

Submitted by zk on October 15, 2014 - 7:03am.

Aecetia wrote:

Will you settle for hard to catch?

If you show me an expert who says it's hard to catch I will. Professor Gershoni said it's "relatively hard to catch." Not the same. And a long, long way from "almost impossible." (Depending on what you're relative comparison was, of course.)

Submitted by zk on October 15, 2014 - 8:05am.

CA renter wrote:

"10 Nefarious Conspiracies Proven True"

http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefar...


#1 Heart attack gun: The CIA has a covert way to kill someone? That’s not a conspiracy. That’s part of their job. The speculation about the people they killed is just speculation.

#2 Domestic terrorism: It never happened. There was a plan by the military that no government leaders agreed to.

#3 Scientology attack: Yes, the church of scientology relentlessly attacked this woman. Attacking one obscure person is such a narrow and small operation that it’s not really the kind of conspiracy that is all that hard to get away with. I’ll agree that attack-one-not-that-well-known-person conspiracies do exist.

It’s a long list and I have to get to work. More later.

Submitted by outtamojo on October 15, 2014 - 9:38am.

zk wrote:
Aecetia wrote:

Will you settle for hard to catch?

If you show me an expert who says it's hard to catch I will. Professor Gershoni said it's "relatively hard to catch." Not the same. And a long, long way from "almost impossible." (Depending on what you're relative comparison was, of course.)

Let's settle on the "infectiousness of ebola is not constant."
Nobody on Duncan's plane caught it.
Nobody in Duncan's apartment caught it.
2 medical personal wearing protective gear caught it.
This is because viral loads zoom in the last days of life and it is during this time that ebola is most infectious.
Edit: based on this, I predict that the infected hospital workers did not spread disease to anyone in contact with them before they tested positive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.