<p>I wonder what happened to the XDR TB guy who made the news in 2007?</p>
<p><a href=“TB Patient Was Advised Not to Fly - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30cnd-tb.html</a></p>
<p>Duncan’s family is set to end their quarantine tonight. None of them have gotten Ebola.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/19/friends-family-ebola-patient-reach-milestone/”>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/19/friends-family-ebola-patient-reach-milestone/</a></p>
<p>Let’s please remember, they did not fly on the same plane with him, or sail on the same cruise ship, or try on wedding dresses in the same shop. They LIVED WITH him. In close quarters. While he was very sick. And after he was diagnosed, they lived in the apartment with his used linens. And yet they did not get the disease. </p>
<p>I hope that this development will calm some fears. Maybe that Maine teacher, whose only crime was to visit the city of Dallas, will be allowed to return to work. Or maybe flight attendants will stop locking passengers who throw up in bathrooms. Or maybe [parents</a> in Hazelhurst, Mississippi](<a href=“msnewsnow.com”>msnewsnow.com) will learn how to read a map.</p>
<p>Here is the XDR TB guy’s saga:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19734910/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/nine-file-million-suit-against-tb-patient/”>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19734910/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/nine-file-million-suit-against-tb-patient/</a></p>
<p>I have not followed the case, so I have no idea what happened with the lawsuit. Amber’s situation is eerily similar: a passenger who has reasons to believe that she is infected with dangerous disease takes a plane trip. </p>
<p>Bentley is a pretty little dog. I hope he gets out of quarantine soon.</p>
<p>As far as the Larry Craig thing, every time I go to the MSP airport, and into those tiny little blue bathrooms, I think…who is having sex in these bathrooms? You can barely fit one person in there. And what poor cop has bathroom duty there? What a crummy job. I was kind of surprised that the cop said a sign that someone wanted a hookup was for them to put their suitcase in the stall. Uh…I thought that just meant you didn’t want anyone to mess with your bags, who knew?</p>
<p>Dunno, I have yet to meet anyone traveling alone who DOESN’T take their luggage into the stall with them. I know I always have and have NEVER wanted to hook up with anyone. I know H & S do when they travel and similarly have never been looking to hook up–hmmm, we must run in different circles.</p>
<p>Huh? Taking your luggage in you stall is some sort of secret sign? Never heard of that. And I still plan to do that. Don’t want to have it stolen while I respond to the call of nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the Larry Craig case, I thought it was the “wide stance” and/or toe tapping into the next stall that was the sign.</p>
<p>I thought it was the wide stance and a hand under the stall. At any rate, on to more important matters like people who say things like this:</p>
<p>“If the Lord lets me live to see tomorrow, my grandson will be in school if that bus runs.” said Stella Threadgill, who removed her grandson from the Middle School Wednesday. “Now I know we got a problem here. I don’t know if that man was in that part of the country of Africa, but I’m gonna pray for him and this school.” </p>
<p>Superintendent Sullivan said the principal will remain on vacation for a week so as not to be a distraction to the education process. Some parents are still not sure when they will allow their children to return.</p>
<p>OMG!!! Maybe these people would be better off home schooling anyway. I just hope that nobody has an unsecured fire arm in there as their kids are way more likely to die a quick and gruesome death that way than from anything having to do with the principle having been to Zambia. </p>
<p>In the meantime, Duncan’s family members have all been released from quarantine, with non having gotten ill, and Nigeria has been declared Ebola-free. Its still a problem in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.</p>
<p>The other doctor, who is being treated at Emory (was infected in Sierra Leone but wishes to remain anonymous) should be released any time, if he/she hasn’t already.)</p>
<p>Here’s Amber Vinson side’s story,</p>
<p><a href=“Ebola patient Amber Vinson's family disputes CDC story, gets a lawyer”>http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-amber-vinson-ebola-20141019-story.html</a></p>
<p>I’d get a lawyer myself in her shoes if true.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this is better here or on the hysteria thread but I wonder if a person or entity (bridal store for example) could sue for damages if their loss or duress was due to over reaction or panic on the part of others and not due to actual risk? Vinson was there to pick dresses for her bridesmaids, she already had her dress so wasn’t trying things on herself. The idea that one would be at risk of catching Ebola from someone who flew on the same plane at a different time in a different seat and was barely running a temp seems far fetched. I’m also wondering who they would sue. A 26 year old nurse who is unmarried and not a home owner doesn’t seem like a viable deep pockets target (unless she gets a settlement from Texas Health and people go after that in turn). If someone were the suing type you’d think they’d go after Texas Health from the start for clearing her to go.</p>
<p>Irrespective of the certainty with which some posters speak, there is no agreement on exactly what is the best course for this disease, and there is no agreement from a molecular genetics standpoint exactly what this virus is doing in terms of morphing its infectious nature. This is why Johns Hopkins and others at both the research and medical school levels are holding symposiums of the top people who represent the differing views. </p>
<p>There are clearly two camps on this issue: 1) MPHs, doctors and research scientists that work for agencies such as the CDC and are taking one set of actions, and 2) MPHs, doctors and research scientists who disagree with the CDC and WHO. Posters are also in one of either camps. </p>
<p>And these differing views are represented around the world. Many brilliant MPHs, doctors and research scientists in over 30 countries (and increasing) have instituted all the measures that many posters here say would be impossible to implement, would cause mass exodus, and would not keep out Ebola. </p>
<p>Most specifically and taking the lead are the African countries around the hot zone which, for months now, have instituted a travel bans and mandatory quarantines, and have effectively limited Ebola spread in their countries, rather quickly in fact. I wonder if people would outwardly call these African countries ignorant for taking actions that some are saying are stupid and would not work?</p>
<p>These countries got these policies to work obviously and the hot zone populations were unable to do any mass exodus people claim would occur with closing borders and a travel ban – and that could not even be pulled of with a border country. Therefore, there is already evidence that what some say is impossible is possible and that what they say would occur would not occur. And finally, the actions did stop the spread of Ebola in several countries. All of this is contrary to what some posters keep repeating about would not work. </p>
<p>We also see the differing viewpoints within our own country with the CDC not instituting a mandatory quarantine, yet the military is doing the opposite for its personnel regardless of where the troops were in hot zone countries. </p>
<p>To answer your question about top MPHs, doctors and research scientists, there are many. One chief spokesman for an alternative viewpoint is from University of Minnesota Infectious Disease Center.</p>
<p>Most interesting new data point from the Johns Hopkins’ symposium on October 14, 2014:</p>
<p><a href=“G”>Quote</a> Today I’ve been given permission to share something I’ve known about for a few weeks that has concerned me greatly. Gary Kobinger and colleagues at Winnipeg Canadian National lab actually took one of the strains from Guinea and put it into Macaques a little over a month and a half ago. What they saw was remarkable. It was unlike any of the Ebola viruses they’ve seen in monkeys. It was much, much more severe; the pathology in the lungs was remarkable. As Gary said, and he is one of the most prominent Ebola virologists in the world, “what I saw was very worrisome to me.” Maybe this is a different virus. Maybe there is that possibility that if you have that much virus in the lungs then airborne transmission is possible.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Additional statements from Johns Hopkins symposium:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/10/ebola-experts-astounding-revelations-fever-not-always-present-3047654.html”>http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/10/ebola-experts-astounding-revelations-fever-not-always-present-3047654.html</a></p>
<p>From another article, he explains why looking at molecular genetics is important and that only focusing on what is known from the past may lead to unpreparedness. In short, there is group that is looking at the genetic data and thinking ahead of the possibilities instead of simply waiting around for things to happen and then being reactive:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Lessons to be learned in Ebola fallout”>Lessons to be learned in Ebola fallout;
<p>The major takeaway is that top schools is not calling this guy nuts. But they are calling much of what the CDC has inadequate, at best. Well, it is hard not to take him seriously given his knowledge of infectious disease and as head of University Of Minnesota Infectious Disease Center. And thus he lined up to speak at all the major schools of medicine and public health. </p>
<p>He speaks for a growing number of doctors, virologists, research scientists and MPHs re Ebola and represents a credible, alternative viewpoint to the people running the CDC and elsewhere.</p>
<p>People will choose they believe, but presenting all viewpoints is worthwhile given the seriousness of the disease.</p>
<p>Well, you can prepare for the propaganda teams to pulverize that guy, or at least not bother to report any of this unless they think there is a way to dismiss it. </p>
<p>Here is the article from the JHS website; It corroborates some of what the other website said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Public health experts gather at Johns Hopkins to discuss Ebola epidemic | Hub”>http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/10/14/ebola-experts-johns-hopkins</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but given his stature, they know they cannot call him a lunatic, as he has data they know he can present on his side. He is speaking for a lot of doctors in the background who are afraid to speak against government publicly for fear of losing grant money.</p>
<p>Notice in post #1573 how he talks about “unexpecteds” ahead. This is just the opposite of the CDC and its proclamations of they know how to handle it in the future.</p>
<p>He has been consistent that the method used such as fever is not a good indicator of infectious state and is not consistent among patients. </p>
<p>He has been consistent that this new strain should be treated differently because of mutation rate, and he does fear it will go airborne. No matter how small the chance, he does see the possibility. He has been very upfront about all these points all over the place. </p>
<p>From his New York Times article on in early September: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html?_r=1”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html?_r=1</a></p>
<p>QUICK NOTE: It does look like one website in post #1572 paraphrased a few things, but you can find him saying similar statements in other articles and interviews he has done.</p>
<p>There is another Ebola specialist from Purdue, Dr. David Sanders, who has been saying the same thing about the potential for mutations making the virus become airborne. He says there is already evidence now that it can penetrate lung cells, or something like that (sorry I’m no expert). </p>
<p>While it is not an issue for us here with the few cases we still have, I can imagine that if it reaches 1.4million cases in January in Africa, as the CDC predicts, who knows what forms it will mutate into.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please allow me to add a small detail here. </p>
<p>The fact that it is now here could be the issue because it is now in a different operating environment than Africa. Therefore, we really have not a clue if our environment would actually be the impetus to make that genetic mutation jump. So even with a few cases here, the one special case here could be the one to stimulate the dangerous mutation. </p>
<p>It would have been more comforting actually if we contained it in Africa proper because it has shown to be unable to make the jump there. </p>
<p>We are not Africa and thus the fact that it is here, we really do start all over again in terms of new types of mutations that would never have occurred in Africa. And this the point that Osterholm is trying to drive home. You change the environment, you change the behavior and the mutation schemes and potentially make it more deadly. </p>
<p>To be fair, it could also go the other way, and become less deadly, but it would be silly to not be using the worse case scenario in preparation.</p>
<p>As Osterholm says, tons of uncertainty and lots of unexpecteds. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is correct. </p>
<p>And it is getting better at it because as time goes on, we can isolate higher titers for the same incubation time. That means it is changing to adapt to the lung environment.</p>
<p>These are just facts that we should be aware, so if a change does occur we are not caught flat-footed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kind of tells you all you need to know about those parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the catch. I am assuming I made the error though. Not sure.</p>
<p>Too fast typing.</p>
<p>I call them countries in previous posts, so readers know this is an error. I try to be perfect but God makes sure he keeps me in check. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Re Charles Hass’ Study on the Quarantine Period for Ebola</p>
<p>What you are doing is NOT the standard used in science to determine if the methodology and conclusions of a study are accurate and whether a study has been expertly done in a particular field. </p>
<p>The standard in science is asking: if the work been debunked by the target audience of doctors, virologists, epidemiologists, research scientists (his target group is large); has the study’s methods been peer-reviewed and corroborated by others in the know of the specific subject matter; and, most important, is it accepted by people in the targeted fields? </p>
<p>And as far as I see, no one has debunked Hass’'s study, as not being useful for examine Ebola. In fact, doctors have looked at it and agreed with several parts, and are now looking at what Hass wrote and applying it to thinking forward about how to best contain the virus at the highest level of confidence possible.</p>
<p>And in this case, Hass’ paper was peer-reviewed BEFORE publication by people who are experts in epidemiology and who studied the transmission of small pox and another diseases to the level, as to be published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, while being backed by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Oxford University Center of Infectious Diseases. </p>
<p>Additionally, these experts in epidemology agreed with Hass to the point of being listed in the credits, as reviewers of the study’s premise, methods and conclusions therein. Can you get better backing in epidemiology? Doubt it. You can get different, but probably not better. Explains why he taken seriously by those who are thinking ahead about the disease.</p>
<p>Reviewers’ credit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eichner’s smallpox epidemiology study, supported by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health:</p>
<p><a href=“http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/158/2/110.full.pdf”>http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/158/2/110.full.pdf</a></p>
<p>And the other person who reviewed the paper before publication is an epidemiologist (Harvard and Oxford-trained) who teaches actually founded a Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Therefore, Hass’ study, metrics, methodology and the entire paper’s arguments were fully vetted by not one, but TWO epidemiologists who are unquestionably well-trained and who are willing to put their personal reputations on the line, as well as the rep of their schools.</p>
<p>If the above is not being vetted at the highest levels, then nothing is. And this may explain why no one of similar high-level credentials have come out debunking the study. (Well, at least not yet where they are wiling to put it in print, but they also know that hey have to bring the same level of understanding of the topic to the game.</p>
<p>Hass’s Ebola Quarantine Study: <a href=“On the Quarantine Period for Ebola Virus – PLOS Currents Outbreaks”>http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/on-the-quarantine-period-for-ebola-virus/</a></p>