OT: Ebola – Global Pandemic?

[kev374]

[quote=ltsdd]”…the worker wore a gown, gloves, mask and shield”

Ebola is likely to be more easily transmitted than we’re led to believe.[/quote]

The authorities routinely say it’s not easily transmissible…that is expected, they don’t want to start a panic.

People are panicking as it is, imagine if they went out and said “Oh btw don’t touch anything because you could get Ebola and die” LMAO!

From what I have read Ebola is able to survive on surfaces contacted by the infected for days in the right environment. It can then enter through microcracks in the skin when another person contacts that same surface.

And Ebola is supposed to be an exceptionally small virus so it requires an extremely microscopic breach in the skin to enter.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things it is still not a pandemic stage since 1 or 2 people contracting the virus means nothing really. But the potential for a pandemic is what is concerning.

[Zeitgeist]

Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

“If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then you’re crazy, right? That’s been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. “Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, ‘conspiracy theorists’ appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html##ixzz3G5jlph32

[zk]

[quote=Zeitgeist]Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

“If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then you’re crazy, right? That’s been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. “Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, ‘conspiracy theorists’ appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html##ixzz3G5jlph32%5B/quote%5D

If you’re a conspiracy theorist, I would expect an incredibly lame article like that to be enough to convince you that you’re “more sane” than someone who’s not a conspiracy theorist. If I thought it would do any good, I’d take the time to destroy that article sentence by sentence.

[outtamojo]

Well, they id’d the nurse/victim and she is all of 26 years old, graduated nursing school in 2010 and received her critical care nursing certification 2 months ago. When bullets start to fly, send in the noob! I bet the more experienced nurses used their experience to make themselves conveniently unavailable.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=Zeitgeist]Because there seems to be a rift here between the official version of how the experts describe Ebola behavior and the disturbing evidence of how it appears to be spreading, I have to post this:

“If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then you’re crazy, right? That’s been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true. “Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, ‘conspiracy theorists’ appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html##ixzz3G5jlph32%5B/quote%5D

If you’re a conspiracy theorist, I would expect an incredibly lame article like that to be enough to convince you that you’re “more sane” than someone who’s not a conspiracy theorist. If I thought it would do any good, I’d take the time to destroy that article sentence by sentence.[/quote]

From what I’ve seen, “conspiracy theorists” tend to be right more often than not. All to often, they are ridiculed for many years before they are proven right. One should never accept the “official” version of a story until they do their own thorough and independent research. Sometimes, logic and reason are enough to disprove an “official” story.

[Coronita]

[quote=outtamojo]Well, they id’d the nurse/victim and she is all of 26 years old, graduated nursing school in 2010 and received her critical care nursing certification 2 months ago. When bullets start to fly, send in the noob! I bet the more experienced nurses used their experience to make themselves conveniently unavailable.[/quote]

It looks like she got a blood transfusion from Dr. Brantly, and her condition reported as stable.. So hopefully it’s good news she’ll survive…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791089/first-picture-devoted-texas-nurse-fighting-life-catching-ebola-treating-man-brought-dreaded-virus-america-beloved-dog-s-quarantine.html

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

From what I’ve seen, “conspiracy theorists” tend to be right more often than not. All to often, they are ridiculed for many years before they are proven right. One should never accept the “official” version of a story until they do their own thorough and independent research. Sometimes, logic and reason are enough to disprove an “official” story.[/quote]

Really? How about some examples?

[Zeitgeist]

Probably not one of the one’s most people would think of, but this one is useful:
“More than 20 years ago journalist Edward Jay Epstein wrote the definitive expose of the diamond business, initially published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 and subsequently as a book, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. Epstein, it must be said, is a conspiracy buff, but his research on diamonds is pretty credible. His central contention is that diamonds have little inherent value; their perennially high price is solely a function of clever promotion and ruthless manipulation of the market. You ask: Isn’t that true of any high-value product? Nope. Take gold, a true commodity in the sense that it’s fungible, as the economists say–like quantities of gold are freely interchangeable. Gold’s purity can be readily assayed and it’s indestructible for practical purposes, making it a reliable store of value. Even now that the world has abandoned the gold standard, gold’s price has held up well on the open market.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2524/is-a-diamonds-price-a-true-measure-of-its-value

[all]

So the NBC cameraman has no health insurance and the cost of the treatment is estimated at $500K. Good thing he is recovering, he will have to film a lot to pay that bill.

[Zeitgeist]

What about Obamacare?

[zk]

[quote=Zeitgeist]Probably not one of the one’s most people would think of, but this one is useful:
“More than 20 years ago journalist Edward Jay Epstein wrote the definitive expose of the diamond business, initially published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 and subsequently as a book, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. Epstein, it must be said, is a conspiracy buff, but his research on diamonds is pretty credible. His central contention is that diamonds have little inherent value; their perennially high price is solely a function of clever promotion and ruthless manipulation of the market. You ask: Isn’t that true of any high-value product? Nope. Take gold, a true commodity in the sense that it’s fungible, as the economists say–like quantities of gold are freely interchangeable. Gold’s purity can be readily assayed and it’s indestructible for practical purposes, making it a reliable store of value. Even now that the world has abandoned the gold standard, gold’s price has held up well on the open market.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2524/is-a-diamonds-price-a-true-measure-of-its-value%5B/quote%5D

That’s more of a monopoly than a conspiracy. And it’s well known.

[zk]

[quote=Zeitgeist]What about Obamacare?[/quote]

Wow. Good answer. If, that is, you can back that up with some kind of reasonable explanation.

[Coronita]

So I guess if I’m blood type O… So when it comes to plasma donation , I can receive any blood plasma type supposedly right?

🙂

[all]

[quote=flu]So I guess if I’m blood type O… So when it comes to plasma donation , I can receive any blood plasma type supposedly right?

:)[/quote]

No. The opposite. AB is universal receiver. O is universal donor.

[outtamojo]

You got it right Flu. As a type O, you can receive any type of PLASMA.( For red cells you can only receive type O.) I forget the approximate volume, but small amounts of incompatible plasma can be tolerated so I would think that if ebola was detected early while viral load was still low, it would still be beneficial to give incompatible survivor plasma due to risk/reward scenario.

[Author]

Posts