• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Surviving Ebola, what can you do?

ebola

  • Please log in to reply
279 replies to this topic

#61 free10

  • Guest
  • 152 posts
  • 15
  • Location:US

Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:22 PM

Moderator's message:  I'm taking the unusual step of editing this post to prevent the spread of misinformation. 

 

The potential for widespread EVD infections is considered low as the disease is only spread by direct contact with the secretions from someone who is showing signs of infection. The quick onset of symptoms makes it easier to identify sick individuals and limits a person's ability to spread the disease by traveling.  

http://www.cdc.gov/m...0728-ebola.html

 

Original message, with added strikeout font:

 

Oh, I fully believe it is coming worldwide big time. There is no way to stop it. It is now in 6 countries, at the same time. It is in cities with millions and 10s of millions of people, for the first time. It is over 3,000 that have been infected and they are claiming it could be 4 times higher than the official numbers, that would be over 12,000 infected already.

Now, anyone tell me what there is, that will stop it now. The CDC and WHO want to know along with every country on earth. I will make this short there is nothing to stop it.

Bodies are lying in the streets for days and outside the new Ebola wards o the ground because they were not admitted, because there were not any beds left. The dogs are eating the bodies and are hosts carriers. Those who die in other homes, or on the streets are not counted in the official numbers. The experts on the ground there are saying it is running faster than they are, with terms like explosive and lightning speed.

You are being fed lies it is hard to catch, and the doctors and nurses are running away from it and the regular hospitals are shutting down there. It is far worse than anyone here wants to imagine, and denial and ignorance are Ebola's friend. Did you know many in those country deny it exists??

I remember when HIV/AIDS was call a "gay disease", like calling Ebola a "third world disease". It does not care if you are Japanese, USA, or what country you are from you are just fresh meat to it. It is killing record numbers of doctors and nurses in moonsuits, without the positive air ventilation using all the protocols. Entire villages have been wiped out.

Tell me one reason it won't be spreading more and more and one real reason it will be any different in any country when it does. The hospitals will shut down. The doctors and nurses will quit, for the most part, and of those that don't many will die. Businesses will shut down and you will not have food or medical. Many will die of starvation or medical needs, before Ebola can even get to them.

Tell me what will stop it from happening. Now, if you believe in miracles it won't but you better put it first on your news list and watch what is happening and plan for it, at some point before it gets bad wherever you live. Study what happened in the Days of the Black Death and ask yourself if anything really has changed and if we are not seeing the same nonsense that didn't work then and the same results.

Then there were not over 6 billion people in the world, nor fast trains cars and airplanes. It was all by foot, so it couldn't travel far or fast in a month, and there were not a lot of people. In hours a person with Ebola can be landing anywhere in the world, and that person can be spreading it for up to 3 weeks while showing no signs of disease and they are undetectable/invisible. If they do survive they are still able to infect for months afterwards. If they die the same thing. Then you have the dogs, rats, pigs, and who knows what else that gets it too. And this is NOT a movie folks but real life happening now.

I am not panicked but I am not a fool either and have been watching this since MAY closely. I never had concerns about the bird flu or swine flue, like most did. THIS is way different. WHO says it. CDC says it. And the dead and live doctors and disease specialist on the ground there say it.

 

https://www.google.c...344.NExHdv63w44


Edited by niner, 30 August 2014 - 02:22 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#62 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 30 August 2014 - 01:44 PM

Free10s panicked post above is exactly the reason this thread is such a bad idea. Poor guy...
  • Good Point x 1

#63 free10

  • Guest
  • 152 posts
  • 15
  • Location:US

Posted 30 August 2014 - 11:44 PM

Free10s panicked post above is exactly the reason this thread is such a bad idea. Poor guy...

 

 

Show me where anything I posted is not true, and as I stated no panic to it. You have nothing to stop it. I can PROVE everything I said. I am not the one spreading disinformation, or trying to keep it from the members.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 31 August 2014 - 12:58 AM

Show me where anything I posted is not true, and as I stated no panic to it. You have nothing to stop it. I can PROVE everything I said. I am not the one spreading disinformation, or trying to keep it from the members.

 

Wasn't that clear from the edits to your post?  The parts in red?  The strikeout text?  The stuff in strikeout font is not true.   I included a link to accurate information.  The only thing I'm trying to keep from members (and the rest of the world) is stuff that isn't correct.



#65 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:06 AM

To be fair to free10 it is possible for someone to be contagious for months especially if they have unprotected sex. (Check the video I posted Berkley.)
Ebola can stay in the sperm for months after the patient is cured.

#66 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:55 AM

http://medcitynews.c...ola-google-map/

#67 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:02 PM

This is one of the most essential reasons that Ebola will not become a pandemic in the true sense of the word.

 

http://www.forbes.co...la-go-airborne/

Can Ebola Go Airborne?

A study in the journal Science, released last week, shows that the Ebola strain spreading across Western Africa has undergone a surprisingly high amount of genetic drift during the current outbreak. Experts say the mutations could eventually make the virus harder to diagnose and perhaps treat with a new therapeutic, should one come along.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, I wrote that in response to the crisis, the Obama administration has stressed that the disease is unlikely to spread inside America. We will certainly see cases diagnosed here, and perhaps even experience some isolated clusters of disease. For now, though, the administration’s assurances are generally correct: Health-care workers in advanced Western nations maintain infection controls that can curtail the spread of non-airborne diseases like Ebola.

But our relative comfort in the U.S. is based on our belief that our public health tools could easily contain a virus spread only through direct contact. That would change radically if Ebola were to alter its mode of spread. We know the virus is mutating. Could it adapt in a way that makes it airborne?

It’s highly unlikely. It would be improbable for a virus to transform in a way that changes its mode of infection. Of the 23 known viruses that cause serious disease in man, none are known to have mutated in ways that changed how they infect humans.  Of course, we only know about a small portion of the existing viruses.

A little background is in order.

The ability of Ebola to spread without direct contact with an infected individual, and whether or not it is efficiently spread through air, are different issues.

It’s already possible that Ebola can spread, in rare cases, through direct contact with respiratory secretions. This might occur, for example, when an infected person coughs or sneezes directly on another, uninfected individual. The Centers for Disease Control specifically recommends “droplet protection” be taken in the hospital setting when healthcare workers are treating patients infected with Ebola. This kind of direct spread is sometimes referred to as “droplet contact,” but it’s distinct from airborne spread.

When a viral infection becomes “airborne,” like ordinary influenza, it means that discharged microbes remain suspended in the air for long periods of time. Generally speaking, this is what is meant by “airborne transmission.” In this case, the organisms must be capable of surviving for long periods of time outside the body and must be resistant to drying. Airborne transmission allows organisms to enter the upper and lower respiratory tracts. This sort of transmission is sometimes also referred to as “droplet contact” or “viral droplet nuclei transmission.”

For this article, I am focused on the latter circumstance — whether or not Ebola could mutate in a way that makes it highly contagious through the air, by allowing the individual viral particles to survive for long periods suspended in dry air.

Right now, Ebola is spread through direct contact with the body fluids of actively infected individuals. Indirect transmission is also possible by means of contact with an object (fomite) that has been soiled by the body fluids of an infected individual.

The widespread belief is that the Ebola virus would be very unlikely to change in a way that would allow the individual virus particles to be concentrated, and remain suspended in respiratory secretions — and then infect contacts through inhalation.

The Ebola virus is comprised of ribonucleic acid (RNA). Such a structure makes it prone to undergoing rapid genetic changes. But to become airborne, a lot of unlikely events would need to occur. Ebola’s RNA genome would have to mutate to the point where the coating that surrounds the virus particles (the protein capsid) is no longer susceptible to harsh drying effects of being suspended in air.

To be spread through the air, it also generally helps if the virus is concentrated in the lungs of affected patients. For humans, this is not the case. Ebola generally isn’t an infection of the lungs. The main organ that the virus targets is the liver. That is why patients stricken with Ebola develop very high amounts of the virus in the blood and in the feces, and not in their respiratory secretions.

Could Ebola mutate in a way that confers these qualities on the virus?

Anything is possible. But such a scientific feat would rate as highly unlikely
. A lot of the speculation that Ebola could be airborne stems from a set of earlier studies that showed Ebola virus may have been able to spread through the air between infected pigs and monkeys. There are reasons why these studies are not applicable when it comes to questions around human-to-human transmission. In animals, Ebola behaves differently than it does in people, for example concentrating in lung tissue.
 



#68 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 04 September 2014 - 05:10 AM

http://www.npr.org/2...s-to-contain-it

#69 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 04 September 2014 - 05:17 AM

This is one of the most essential reasons that Ebola will not become a pandemic in the true sense of the word.

http://www.forbes.co...la-go-airborne/ Can Ebola Go Airborne?
A study in the journal Science, released last week, shows that the Ebola strain spreading across Western Africa has undergone a surprisingly high amount of genetic drift during the current outbreak. Experts say the mutations could eventually make the virus harder to diagnose and perhaps treat with a new therapeutic, should one come along.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, I wrote that in response to the crisis, the Obama administration has stressed that the disease is unlikely to spread inside America. We will certainly see cases diagnosed here, and perhaps even experience some isolated clusters of disease. For now, though, the administration’s assurances are generally correct: Health-care workers in advanced Western nations maintain infection controls that can curtail the spread of non-airborne diseases like Ebola.

But our relative comfort in the U.S. is based on our belief that our public health tools could easily contain a virus spread only through direct contact. That would change radically if Ebola were to alter its mode of spread. We know the virus is mutating. Could it adapt in a way that makes it airborne?

It’s highly unlikely. It would be improbable for a virus to transform in a way that changes its mode of infection. Of the 23 known viruses that cause serious disease in man, none are known to have mutated in ways that changed how they infect humans. Of course, we only know about a small portion of the existing viruses.

A little background is in order.

The ability of Ebola to spread without direct contact with an infected individual, and whether or not it is efficiently spread through air, are different issues.

It’s already possible that Ebola can spread, in rare cases, through direct contact with respiratory secretions. This might occur, for example, when an infected person coughs or sneezes directly on another, uninfected individual. The Centers for Disease Control specifically recommends “droplet protection” be taken in the hospital setting when healthcare workers are treating patients infected with Ebola. This kind of direct spread is sometimes referred to as “droplet contact,” but it’s distinct from airborne spread.

When a viral infection becomes “airborne,” like ordinary influenza, it means that discharged microbes remain suspended in the air for long periods of time. Generally speaking, this is what is meant by “airborne transmission.” In this case, the organisms must be capable of surviving for long periods of time outside the body and must be resistant to drying. Airborne transmission allows organisms to enter the upper and lower respiratory tracts. This sort of transmission is sometimes also referred to as “droplet contact” or “viral droplet nuclei transmission.”

For this article, I am focused on the latter circumstance — whether or not Ebola could mutate in a way that makes it highly contagious through the air, by allowing the individual viral particles to survive for long periods suspended in dry air.

Right now, Ebola is spread through direct contact with the body fluids of actively infected individuals. Indirect transmission is also possible by means of contact with an object (fomite) that has been soiled by the body fluids of an infected individual.

The widespread belief is that the Ebola virus would be very unlikely to change in a way that would allow the individual virus particles to be concentrated, and remain suspended in respiratory secretions — and then infect contacts through inhalation.

The Ebola virus is comprised of ribonucleic acid (RNA). Such a structure makes it prone to undergoing rapid genetic changes. But to become airborne, a lot of unlikely events would need to occur. Ebola’s RNA genome would have to mutate to the point where the coating that surrounds the virus particles (the protein capsid) is no longer susceptible to harsh drying effects of being suspended in air.

To be spread through the air, it also generally helps if the virus is concentrated in the lungs of affected patients. For humans, this is not the case. Ebola generally isn’t an infection of the lungs. The main organ that the virus targets is the liver. That is why patients stricken with Ebola develop very high amounts of the virus in the blood and in the feces, and not in their respiratory secretions.

Could Ebola mutate in a way that confers these qualities on the virus?

Anything is possible. But such a scientific feat would rate as highly unlikely
. A lot of the speculation that Ebola could be airborne stems from a set of earlier studies that showed Ebola virus may have been able to spread through the air between infected pigs and monkeys. There are reasons why these studies are not applicable when it comes to questions around human-to-human transmission. In animals, Ebola behaves differently than it does in people, for example concentrating in lung tissue.

It can become air born under the right conditions, the very first known outbreak for instance.

#70 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 September 2014 - 12:49 AM

It can become air born under the right conditions, the very first known outbreak for instance.

 

What's your source for this?  This sounds like it's not true, unless "the right conditions" is something pretty weird, like putting blood from an Ebola victim in a pump sprayer...



#71 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 05 September 2014 - 06:13 AM

You'll have to listen to the Berkley video I posted.

#72 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,659 posts
  • 586
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:07 AM

Ark

I am in Africa, working amongst other people.
Why am I not worried about Ebola?
  • like x 1

#73 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 September 2014 - 12:58 PM

You'll have to listen to the Berkley video I posted.

 

I don't know which video you mean.  What post number is it?   Who said it, and what was their evidence?  Because your claim goes against everything I've ever read from reliable sources, I'm going to have to consider it false until I see the evidence.



#74 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 05 September 2014 - 04:40 PM

here

Ark

I am in Africa, working amongst other people.
Why am I not worried about Ebola?

That's good.

#75 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:06 PM

Ark, I watched the video.  The aerosolization they talked about was not from Ebola patients.  The outbreak they were describing began in a cotton factory.  It was thought to be bat urine on raw cotton that got airborne as part of the manufacturing process.   If you weren't scared out of your mind, you might have noticed around 24:00 where they talked about children who were sleeping in the same room as Ebola patients, yet DID NOT GET SICK.  This underscores the point that the disease is spread by very close contact, particularly with bodily fluids, NOT through the air.



#76 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,659 posts
  • 586
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 05 September 2014 - 10:40 PM

Ark

I am in Africa, working amongst other people.
Why am I not worried about Ebola?

That's good.

 

 

:laugh:

I am not worried because I am not kissing or screwing anyone of these high risk locals.  Simple as that.

There is a chance that some infected person my sneeze or cough on me,  but as Ebola is a lipid coated virus and I take EVCO and/or BHT I am still not worried.

 

I recommend you do some research on Lipid Coated Pathogens and things that disrupt said lipid layer rather than trying to defend an opinion that has repeatedly been proven to be unnecessarily alarmist.


  • like x 1

#77 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 06 September 2014 - 01:31 AM

Your the scared one's, haha
EBOLA IS GROWING, AND YOU GUYS GOT NOTHING.
It would be interesting if you people would try helping this thread instead of down playing my posts. Unless you respond with something towards the cure that's relevant I will be ignoring your posts.

Edited by Ark, 06 September 2014 - 01:32 AM.

  • dislike x 1

#78 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 06 September 2014 - 02:17 AM

So ignoring everyone basically lol...

Sometimes when you're the only one it is worth considering if just maybe it's you who is wrong. Takes a smart person to do that...

#79 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:23 PM

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/r0-ebola/

#80 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 15 September 2014 - 10:18 PM

 

Just some sub par guys looking to get funding, nothing to see here....
 



#81 Avatar of Horus

  • Guest
  • 241 posts
  • 291
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 15 September 2014 - 10:40 PM

Moderator's message:  I'm taking the unusual step of editing this post to prevent the spread of misinformation. 
 
The potential for widespread EVD infections is considered low as the disease is only spread by direct contact with the secretions from someone who is showing signs of infection. The quick onset of symptoms makes it easier to identify sick individuals and limits a person's ability to spread the disease by traveling.  
http://www.cdc.gov/m...0728-ebola.html
 
Original message, with added strikeout font:
 
... and that person can be spreading it for up to 3 weeks while showing no signs of disease and they are undetectable/invisible. If they do survive they are still able to infect for months afterwards. ...


IMHO these sentences are true.
source: WHO Ebola virus disease Fact sheet
http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs103/en/
"The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms, is 2 to 21 days."
"People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus. Ebola virus was isolated from semen 61 days after onset of illness in a man who was infected in a laboratory."
"Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

#82 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 September 2014 - 10:40 PM

At least the Wired article wasn't claiming that we would be dying in the streets.  They raised an interesting point- The developed world will be harmed if Africa becomes politically destabilized from a massive outbreak.  If people don't buy the moral case that we should contain the outbreak because it's the right thing to do, then maybe they should consider the self-interest case.  At any rate, we need to get some serious resources over there and fix this ASAP.



#83 Lufega

  • Guest
  • 1,810 posts
  • 274
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:58 PM

Lomatium dissectum.

Best antiviral ever. I've used it again and again on different viral illnesses with instant results.

#84 RorschachRev

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Nevada

Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:50 AM

Turmeric is antiviral, antibacterial, antiviral. It is a major ingredient in yellow curry and cured my teenage sister's acne completely for 2 week duration on one capsule a day. After two weeks, her acne came back until about day 3 or 4 of taking turmeric capsules again. My mother had cat scratch fever and I made her drink a teaspoon in tea 4 times a day, she was "feeling better" the first night and cured in a day and a half. 

 

I have suggested turmeric for several people with abscesses and toothaches from infection. Saltwater first, hydrogen peroxide second, turmeric packed on third. The turmeric is the most effective, but people struggle with the flavor. Successful every time packed on.



#85 RorschachRev

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Nevada

Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:53 AM

 

:laugh:

I am not worried because I am not kissing or screwing anyone of these high risk locals.  Simple as that.

There is a chance that some infected person my sneeze or cough on me,  but as Ebola is a lipid coated virus and I take EVCO and/or BHT I am still not worried.

 

 

Don't forget people who spit on the ground, followed by shoe contact. Please encourage people to spit into the trash.



#86 Lufega

  • Guest
  • 1,810 posts
  • 274
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:11 PM

First case of Ebola on US soil confirmed.

 

http://www.dallasnew...sis-in-u.s..ece



#87 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:50 PM

First case of Ebola on US soil confirmed.

 

http://www.dallasnew...sis-in-u.s..ece

 

A person traveled to West Africa, came back and developed symptoms.  They went to a US hospital.  Here's some text from the quoted link, in case anyone is feeling like soiling their undies:

 

 

But the risks here are not the same. As Smith, the epidemiologist, put it:

 

Ebola is a terrible disease. It kills many of the people that it infects. It can spread fairly rapidly when precautions are not carefully adhered to: when cultural practices such as ritual washing of bodies are continued despite warnings, or when needles are reused because of a lack of medical supplies, or when gloves and other protective gear are not available, or when patients are sharing beds because they are brought to hospitals lacking even such basics as enough beds or clean bedding for patients.

 

But that is not the case in Dallas County. The patient who may have Ebola (test results are due today) is in isolation. Health officials are already investigating everyone he or she has been in contact with. Hospitals are trained in how to respond to such diseases and have the necessary supplies.

 

“This is not Africa,” Dallas County Health and Human Services director Zachary Thompson told The Morning News. “We have a great public health infrastructure to deal with this type of disease.”



#88 Flex

  • Guest
  • 1,629 posts
  • 149
  • Location:EU

Posted 30 September 2014 - 10:33 PM

 

It's important to note that I'm not an expert on this topic, I'm just getting the discussion started. In the event that that the problem became widespread and hospitals exceeded capacity... Otherwise go to the hospital.

 

So it looks like we'd need:

  • Coagulants - I'm not aware of any other than oxytocin (you'd likely be in a hospital by the time you needed this)
  • Anticoagulants - common ones include aspirin... any others? Aspirin could be taken with any advance warning as a pre-emptive measure and would help with headaches and fever. Thoughts? 

 

 

whats about Vitamin K ( I guess K1) ?

Its the antidote for Marcumar, but needs afaik 6-48 h to work

Dosage is IIRC 10-20 drops of a 20mg Vitamin k1 /ml solution



#89 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:40 AM

Also if you can find a survivor with the same blood type, you could get a blood transfusion.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#90 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:08 PM

I am with Niner and Pwain on this one. I am more afraid of mass-hysteria than ebola.

 

The survival rate in the U.S. is 100% (so far). I suspect that if there is a more widespread outbreak in the U.S., vulnerable populations (already ill, elderly, infants) will suffer more, as it is with the flu.

 

Ebola is an "old" virus. Throughout past decades, even without extreme pathogen surveillance, no treatments, no travel restrictions, outbreaks about every year in Africa, it has never spread across the world....pretty amazing, IMO. Just as most diseases are more deadly in Africa, so it goes with ebola.

 

Just wondering about the lipid protection hypothesis. Why would coconut oil provide some level of protection against ebola. What is the mechanism/theory behind this?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ebola

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users