Posted on 08/05/2014 6:15:51 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
http://www.singtomeohmuse.com/viewtopic.php?t=5725&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=825
Read the saudi posts on that thread/page.
And just what is a WalMartian?
I was at Walmart yesterday...Did not see anything out of the ordinary.
I can see you are King of your keyboard....While I am quite aware of ignorance, I do use facts and examples to support my allegations, should I make them. I don’t use a rather hyperbolically written exposé (essentially ant-gov with a purpose) to make my case.
I try to use the science and the writings of those who deal with this and have for decades now, to support my case that Ebola and the US, even if it comes here undetected, are not in peril. The US cannot defeat it, and Ebola cannot defeat the US.
But someday, perhaps in my remaining years, they might put a dent in it.
If it were as bad as you apparently fear, in terms of spread, It would have decimated Africa long ago. but it has not. It’s had 4 decades that we know of to do it. And it can’t.
So that’s about it....You can return now to zombies....
Just a guess, but you obviously don’t get around much.
I did...and I just did again....
I see where the wife was talking to the press on Friday. I see the funeral announcement and other factoids about precautions taken. and I saw this...
“They said another Saudi citizen who was in direct contact with him showed symptoms of the deadly virus and was quarantined at King Fahd Hospital in Jeddah”
That is how I came up with two.
Also saw that the Saudi man went home for a few days...
In the US, his family would be in quarantine. If they are not yet, they should be.
Also saw where the greek infection was a false alarm..Turned out to be Malaria.
you said: “Frankly, I don’t think...”
Frankly you don’t have to think - just read
how about: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full
The isolation of EBOV from semen 40 days after the onset of illness underscores the risk of sexual transmission of the filoviruses during convalescence. Zaire EBOV has been detected in the semen of convalescent patients by virus isolation (82 days) and RT-PCR (91 days) after disease onset [5, 14]. Marburg virus has also been isolated from the semen and linked conclusively to sexual transmission 13 weeks into convalescence [15].
or this: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/faq-ebola/en/
Men who have recovered from the illness can still spread the virus to their partner through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery. For this reason, it is important for men to avoid sexual intercourse for at least 7 weeks after recovery or to wear condoms if having sexual intercourse during 7 weeks after recovery.
or this: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ebola-virus/Pages/Ebola-virus.aspx
having sex with an infected person without using a condom (the virus is present in semen for up to seven weeks after the infected person has recovered) {my note: if catching Ebola while wearing a condom is as likely as getting pregnant while wearing a condom - anyone who procreates with a convalescing Ebola patient needs to have their head examined}
or how about: http://www.researchgate.net/...Risk...Ebola...Transmission.../72e7e52e9088855
As indicated by RT-PCR and ELISA antigen results from
blood (data not shown), the shedding of EBOV in saliva corresponded almost exactly to the period of viremia, with the last positive saliva specimen noted at day 8 after disease onset. In contrast, specimens of breast milk and semen were found to be culture positive and RT-PCR positive at days 15 and 40 after disease onset, respectively, when EBOV was already cleared from the blood. The same patient’s semen was negative when retested at day 45.
from The Hot Zone: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44577588/The-Hot-Zone
“No one knows why Marburg has a special affinity for the testicles and the eyes. One man infected his wife with Marburg through sexual intercourse.” pg 26
“Dalgard thought they were probably having sexual intercourse with their wives. He didn’t even want to think about the consequences.” pg 216
“Unlike the quiet Mr. Yu. G., he had a wide circle of friends, including several mistresses. He spread the agent far and wide in the town. The agent jumped easily from person to person, apparently through touching and sexual contact. It was a fast spreader, and it could live easily in people.” pg 67
I heard of schills for pharma, but it’s like your an apologist for Ebola
I expect the wife to come down with it as well. Just from likely taking care of him when he was sick prior to his going to the hospital.
Maybe one or more of the daughters as well.
Did you read what he did in WA?
“And just what is a WalMartian?”
http://http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
aka WalMartians
if you rely on citations then read the ones I supplied to back up my proposition
Some of the posts must be translated because they are a bit difficult to read, but it seems it was a day before they obtained a thermometer. When they did he went to the hospital.
It's possible, in fact quite possible that he was not shedding virus yet, just the initial stage before you get to that point, but the house should be deconned and the wife and kids should be quarantined for 3 weeks.
“Did you read what he did in WA?”
Ummmmmm.....not sure what you mean..
This apparently was issued yesterday.
“The Health Ministry said in a statement yesterday, in response to what has been circulated in some media for recording suspected case of a second Ebola virus in the province of Jeddah it out of its commitment to transparency in communicating with everyone, it confirms the absence of any new cases are suspected to be infected with Ebola virus, tight its commitment to the community to tell all new about any of infectious diseases and educate everyone prevention methods required by the best practices of the International Health.
While confirmed for “economic” a source familiar with the King Fahd General Hospital integrity of the person who is suspected of having Baapola, and out on the same day, indicating that the suspect was in contact with infected with Ebola, who died, was summoned immediately to the hospital after a high temperature but with tests performed immediately after his arrival to the hospital yesterday, the first, proved his safety from injury to any serious contagious virus, was leaving the same day.
And rejected Dr. Khaled Mirghalani official spokesman for the Ministry of Health to answer questions about the newspaper, but he announced through his account in the “Twitter” that what was published in a newspaper about the existence of a second suspected case of “not true.”
Apparently he was working at one of the hospitals there.
Supposedly to give advice on how to prevent nosocomial infections.
Yeah.....probably got it off a parcel or box, something that got recently contaminated...even a doorknob...then he wiped his eye with a finger...
You would be surprised how many knowledgeable people will do that, even with a gloved hand.
If his eye had a scratch or a tiny broken blood vessel which many do, that is enough.
If this gets loose in the NYC subway system we’re toast.
The only redeeming thing about the way Ebola spreads is that the infected spreader does not do it for very long before they die. 3-4 days...usually...
Worries about those who survive and there are just as many in that category are only valid, again if you come into contact with their fluids, like blood or waste, before they are totally clear of the disease, but they are much less dangerous because the numbers of virus units are very low as the immune system has wiped out or damaged most of them.
My Lurker buddy is all bent out of shape over finding virus after the blood is clear. I won’t argue that, because both men and women have receptacles that can hold fluids for some time that the immune system cannot generally get to to clean. He wants to associate the disease outbreak to the same vectors as aids, which you just cannot do. Once infected with aids, you live and are HIV positive for life.
For Ebola, it’s at best a 20 day hellish event. By then you are dead or recovering. Only 4-5 of those days are you capable of easily infecting others..after that you are cremated or you are in a quarantined recovery for a number of weeks. The virus does a lot of damage. But people heal.
As to the receptacles,
That would be the prostate in a man and the colon. And in a woman it’s breast milk if pregnant, and the colon..
The colon generally clears out in 3 days, usually by the time the blood is clean but not if there is constipation. the prostate is another matter that can be easily dealt with at any time, but again the viruses would be small in number, less infective, but not 0. Nothing is zero.
This actually hold true with nearly any virus and is somewhat age dependent as well, which is why a patient is kept for a extra week or so to clean up. Not sure what the actual protocols are calling for now...I know some old stuff...that Is not in a bit outdated..
I had to study it years ago for a emergency response certification. So I could teach it..to Boy Scouts.
I’ve actually managed to avoid NYC for my entire life.
So I’ve never been in a subway of any kind.
It can’t be worse than a Greyhound bus.
Yes, public transport is vulnerable to becoming a method of spread for all sorts of pathogens.
I don’t see it happening with ebola. I don’t think it could ever get that bad, but Cities would react quickly if there was a contagion in it. Public transport would be the first thing they would look at. They would shut it down, and they could use infrared camera’s to take everyone’s temperature as a screen.
All sorts of ways to control it. They actually do some of that today, you just never see it..rad detectors, bomb sniffers...
That will be the result of a collapse of the financial system globally, and be followed by rampant inflation, causing them to issue worthless transfer payments and then the whole system of law and order will just go away leaving nothing but chaos.
Sometime after that, ebola could pop up in the surviving population, but even then, the survivors will drag them out and shoot them if they have any bullets left.
I think Ebola or Ebola related viruses have plagued humans long before history was written. And it is still in Africa! Even though tribes left Africa and ended up populating the planet.
I think that tells us something. I think it tells us that the virus has a difficult time finding a host to keep it alive, in any other parts of the world. So it stays close to home. Irritating people from time to time and the virus follows them out, only to die off...
A few years ago, the FDA came up with the "animal rule" specifically for situations like this. The animal rule allows for the approval of drugs *if* the animal model of the disease can be shown to be identical to the human disease, and *if* the drug can be shown to have identical effect in the animal model and humans.
These two "ifs" are really, really hard to overcome. If animal metabolism and physiology characteristics were so human-like that diseases and drugs behaved exactly the same way in animals and humans, we wouldn't need massive human testing for drug approval--we would just test on thousands of rodents. (And then kill them all... this is why I try to avoid doing animal studies.)
I guess it is what it is, as they say. There are always ethical considerations. But they do have a opportunity now, and will likely have more in the future until they can figure out a way to beat this virus into submission. They need humans to do it.
There is some opportunity to do limited testing within the context of the outbreak. Ethically, however, doing such testing is like walking a minefield. Because of the fact that many of these people are minimally educated, even illiterate, getting informed consent to give them untested drugs is extremely problematic. Previous studies have established that people with this level of education (or lack thereof) are incapable of grasping the concept of informed consent.
So I suppose I am supportive of it. But I often detest what the FDA does at times..
The FDA has a very difficult position. It gets blamed when it approves a drug that later must be pulled from the market for safety concerns; it gets blamed when the drug approval process ends up dragging on for several years, potentially depriving people of its benefit. Drug approval decisions are made by panels of scientists and physicians who are subject matter experts; they must read through reams of data before they can make a decision. Since there is nothing standard about a new drug, they must make these decisions based on having no prior knowledge of the effects of the drug. The process is a little easier if the drug is a variant of an already-approved drug, since they already have real-world data about the parent drug to work with.
Some of the nuances of drug approval are very hard even for highly educated people to grasp. I have a veterinarian friend who has a hard time with it--if it is so difficult for her to understand, I can only imagine the difficulty for a lay person who does not have the benefit of a doctoral level life sciences education.
The FDA showed its value when it refused to approve Thalidomide, which had already been approved in Europe. The one physician who was not satisfied with the submission packet and refused to vote for approval until the manufacturer could provide specific safety data (which it never did) ended up receiving a Congressional Medal of Honor for her work in preventing the US from a Thalidomide tragedy.
If I am ever downsized out of my current job, I want to go to work for the FDA.
your comment is a real stretch - ‘cause you left out the word “reversibly” and the part about “oxalic acid which are excreted in the urine”
For some reason, I have in my mind a vision of Obi Wan Kenobi saying to Luke Skywalker, "The ignorance runs deep in this one, young Skywalker."
All enzymatic processes are reversible, including those involved with Vitamin C metabolism. In fact, all chemical reactions are reversible. Since all reactions are reversible, it doesn't even occur to me to specify their reversibility. That would be as superfluous as specifying that fish and turtles breathe oxygen. So don't read too much into the fact that I did not point out a feature that is common to all chemical reactions/enzymatic processes.
Also, the fact that excess Vitamin C and oxalic acid are excreted in the urine does not make them non-toxic. What that means is that the body has very good mechanisms for removing toxic substances before they have a chance to cause harm. When you consume grams of Vitamin C, you push that detoxification system past its design limits. A one-time overload of the system probably is no big deal, but if you keep overloading the system day after day, for months and years, you are going to damage it. If you have a kidney disease that prevents them from adequately filtering your blood, then those substances build up in your body. I saw pictures of the hands and feet of a woman who was taking megadoses of Vitamin C after receiving a kidney transplant. Not only did she destroy the new kidney, visible oxalate crystals formed throughout her body. Oh, and she died.
Here is the graphic. Note that she was only 31 years old, and that her hands and feet are all twisted as if she had advanced rheumatoid arthritis. Look at her fingernails, too. Obviously, the function of the nail beds was inhibited by the excess ascorbate and oxalate in her body. I bet her hair looked bad, too.
“Ascorbic acid is reversibly oxidized to dehydroascorbic acid; some is metabolized to ascorbate-2-sulfate, which is inactive, and oxalic acid which are excreted in the urine. Ascorbic acid in excess of the body’s needs is also rapidly eliminated unchanged in the urine; this generally occurs with intakes exceeding 100 mg daily.”
Pay attention to what you posted. The fact that your kidneys work to excrete all Vitamin C that is in excess of the normal quantity circulating in blood means that at best, you flush money down the toilet when you consume excess quantities of Vitamin C. At worst, however, you cause tissue damage, which accumulates over time and can even lead to death, as was the case with the patient in that linked graphic.
“I find it funny that you apparently believe everything on a website put together by someone with a clear interest in selling supplements”
sorry but Linus Pauling, the Nobel prize winner, was not someone interested in selling supplements and his research goes back to the 1960s. The Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University is renown for the early groundbreaking research into Vitamin C see: “Ascorbic Acid and Cancer.” February 14, 1976. http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/blood/notes/1976s.4.html
So Linus Pauling, when venturing outside of the area of his expertise, turned out to be somewhat of a kook. He is not the only Nobel Prize winner to reveal a kooky side--Francis Crick is another who went off the deep end. Yet, despite their kookiness, the work for which they won the Nobel Prize is solid, and informs much of what scientists like myself do.
I notice that you have to link something from the 1970s. So Pauling tested Vitamin C for therapeutic potential against cancer. Cancer is a big topic, still a big killer--people try all kinds of things to combat it. The problem is not that he tested Vitamin C in this regard, but that he became enamored of his preliminary results and advocated [over]use of Vitamin C. Since he was a chemist, not a biochemist (there is a big difference), he did not understand or predict the biological mechanisms or consequences of consuming micronutrients in quantities that vastly exceed the body's requirements. Pauling's early results may have seemed to indicate anti-cancer properties of Vitamin C, but his studies were poorly designed and could not be replicated. Thus, Vitamin C joins the long list of putative anti-cancer compounds that did not pan out.
I'm not sure of your point in linking to the PubChem page on ascorbic acid. Do you seriously think a PhD trained biochemist is incapable of finding information within her area of expertise?
plus you missed the target because it is not ascorbic acid that is taken in mega-doses but sodium ascorbate.
Don't you get it? They weren't drinking lemonade, they were drinking PINK lemonade! It's different, because it's PINK! < /sarc >
The reason for IV infusion of sodium ascorbate, the salt form of the acid, is that infusing the same quantity of the hydrogen form of ascorbate would kill the patient from blood acidification. Within the aqueous environment, there is no difference between hydrogen ascorbate (ascorbic acid) and sodium ascorbate. The charge of the ascorbate changes depending on the ambient pH of the aqueous solution, so ascorbic acid *is* different in the stomach than it is in the intestines or blood--and even if it is injected into the veins as sodium ascorbate, ascorbate will be excreted by the kidneys as hydrogen ascorbate due to the acidic nature of urine--but this is really inconsequential to the discussion at hand.
The pertinent fact is that taking so much Vitamin C that the kidneys are unable to secrete all of it and the blood concentration actually increases is not good, and can lead to pathologies.
Also, let me describe the physical mechanism of kidney damage caused by ascorbic acid. If you go to that PubChem page, and click on "Chemical and Physical Properties", you will see that ascorbate is described as having a crystalline structure. Chemicals crystallize when there is so much chemical that no more can be solubilized, which is what we call the saturation point. The function of the kidneys is to concentrate solutes so as to reduce water loss from urination. When they concentrate liquid containing abnormally high quantities of circulating ascorbate, that ascorbate can become concentrated beyond its saturation point and starts to crystallize. Even if visible crystals do not form, microcrystals are still sharp and can scrape the insides of the kidney tubules, causing damage. The effects of this damage depend on how many crystals and their size distribution. However the damage manifests, it probably is not a good thing to be continually scraping the insides of the kidneys. Long-term, such damage could cause kidney failure; potentially, it is carcinogenic.
And, before you go off about "but oxalate!" (or any other metabolite of ascorbate), let me point out that the same mechanism applies to ANY chemical present in excess in the blood.
so keep up te4h good work of scaring people off of what could be life saving therapy for them.
Thank you, I do my best to educate people as to what the medical science actually says, and to guide them towards tested and proven therapies. And if there is no tested and proven therapy, I tell them that. I'm not out to promote the snake oil industry.
Yeah, the situation is worrisome. That is probably why the CDC and the WHO are taking this so seriously.
In a way, though, I am still somewhat surprised. As I said to a coworker the other day, "Who ever thought that there would be so much interest in Ebola?" Until now, most people had never even heard of the disease.
In addition, part of the preparation of a dead body in some of those places involves giving it an enema. That spreads infection for sure...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.