Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ElenaM
I think the RT-PCR test results are the significant portion of this specific study given the issues surrounding the sample handling.

In my personal experience, it is quite possible to find virus by RT-PCR that simply cannot be confirmed by plaque assay. All RT-PCR does is tell you that large enough fragments of viral RNA exist to give a positive result on the PCR test. It tells you nothing about virus viability.

The study described in that J. Inf. Disease article was less-than-ideal for a number of reasons. Were I a reviewer of that paper, and the virus anything but Ebola, I would not have recommended its publication. Probably whoever reviewed it thought the same.

In a previous post (number 2118) you wrote:

In order for Ebola to become airborne, it would have to 1) infect cells in the upper respiratory system, in the bronchia and possibly alveoli, and 2) be resistant to destruction by drying.

Ebola infects dendritic cells, which are numerous in the respiratory tract.

The airborne viruses I know all infect ciliated epithelial cells in the upper respiratory tract. The last time I checked, dendritic cells are not ciliated. The virus would also have to change its physical structure in order to become airborne, to make it resistant to drying. Right now, the virus spreads just fine through infected fluids and possibly droplet transmission--there is no selective pressure for it to change mode of transmission.

I do not know of any Ebola researchers who think that Ebola is airborne, or that it spreads through means other than close contact or proximity with infected persons. If you can provide examples of actual research papers, peer-reviewed and indexed in PubMed, that definitively demonstrate true airborne (NOT droplet, NOT fomite) transmission of Ebola from a human--or even non-human primate--please post the reference(s). Otherwise, quit trying to find ways to make the evidence fit your desire for Ebola to be airborne. It is not, and no knowledgeable person has ever said otherwise.

FYI, here is a nice article from Scientific American that explains why Ebola is not airborne and is not likely to become airborne. It is written for consumption by laypeople, and seems to avoid the dense language that scientists such as myself often use.

The next time influenza sweeps around the northern hemisphere, seemingly simultaneously across the whole hemisphere, you might want to get down on your knees and thank God that Ebola is not airborne. Influenza season is coming, and there is nothing we can do to stop its spread.

2,195 posted on 09/18/2014 6:54:22 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2147 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom
Did you bother to read the quoted material? It's about AEROSOLS. You said Ebola cannot infect cells in the respiratory tract. I asked for a cite and you give me Scientific American? After demanding a PubMed cite for something I didn't write? Are you saying that cilia prevent Ebola glycoprotein spikes from adhering to ciliated epithelial cells? Where is your cite for that? I'm quickly coming to think that you are not the least bit interested in serious conversation/debate on this topic. For some odd reason you are fixated on the utter impossibility of epidemiological "airborne" and fomite transmission to the exclusion of all else, and literally nothing will cause you to step back and actually think about the topic. In a year or so we'll have a lot more data on the various transmission types. I suppose we'll know by then whether the "must be puked/bled on" theme is accurate. I sincerely hope it is accurate but everything I read and hear outside of mass media (which parrots the politicians and bureaucrats in the government health agencies) says that Ebola transmission vectors are far more extensive than that. Whom to believe: an AP reporter, a politician, a political appointee or a research virologist? I don't find that a difficult choice.
2,196 posted on 09/18/2014 7:11:15 PM PDT by ElenaM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson