Replies

I think you have those swapped. The Marburg outbreak of 2004 had fatality rates above 90%. It is Marburg that breaks down the internal organs, although both attack them.

Much more information on Marburg at The Marburg Surveillance Project Threads (follow links) from the 2004 outbreak. Those threads inspired the Ebola Surveillance Thread currently active.

I might be wrong but this is what I remember from a few years ago:

More than 100 people in Angola have died so far in an outbreak of the deadly Marburg virus, a close relative of Ebola. If you have to fall sick with a viral hemorrhagic fever from the Marburg-Ebola family, which one should you choose?

Go with Marburg. Though we don't know very much about how these viruses work, history suggests that between a quarter and half of all people who get Marburg die from it; there is a 90 percent mortality rate among those who contract Ebola. These numbers may be revised in light of the Marburg outbreak in Angola, however. Early reports indicate a mortality rate of nearly 100 percent.

This comes from:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/03/marburg_vs_ebola.html

And from the excellent book on the subject "Hot Zone" by Richard Preston.