So you don’t think those doctors sited know those basic facts?
Bubonic plague has been around for a long time. We have it today, we study the bacillus, we treat it with penicillin. We dig up old mass graves from the 14th century and we find evidence that the disease then is the same disease as today. We look at art from the 14th century and we see the buboes represented in plague victims.
Now we have a filovirus and some doctor thinks it's bubonic plague.
It ain't.
I posted an article about this book last night. It was published in 2004/5. In 2010, researchers did a massive study of mass graves all over the world. Not only did they find the genes for Bubonic Plague, but they managed to isolate the three different strains of the disease that ravaged half the planet.
They actually shed light on the transmission and clarified some historical confusion.
The authors have some interesting points and they did a good job following the historical record, but the geneticists have taken away all doubt.
Now, here’s what I’m wondering. There were three different strains that did the damage, all mutated from the other. We know that those small mutations can have a dramatic impact on how a disease progresses.
The fact is, that bastard bacteria did behave like a hemorrhagic fever more than than it behaved like Plague. (mortality, transmission rates, symptoms)
Now days, Plague isn’t as terrifying because we have antibiotics, but the old Plague left us a nice record for what Ebola can do. And we don’t have a neat little pill or shot to save us from this. (The only thing worse is a mosquito-driven hemorrhagic fever. Then the damn thing has managed to become airborne in it’s own way. Our situation could be worse.)
The source article refers to the pair as “researchers”, so I suspect they are not medical doctors.
They have a book out, so perhaps they are motivated by wanting sales of it.
Who can trust anything coming out of UK universities since East Anglia is a proven fraud monger.