The "Aw FRACK" ebola thread | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

The "Aw FRACK" ebola thread

DON’T FEAR EBOLA, FEAR THE STATE
And mistrust fascist big pharma public-private partnerships

It is difficult to contract the deadly viral disease Ebola.

In order to get it, you have to be in direct contact with blood and other body fluids from an infected person or animal. Aerosol transmission is not possible. The possibility of widespread transmission is extremely low due to a high fatality rate and the remote areas where infections usually occur.

According to some members of the medical establishment and the corporate media, the spread of the disease is out of control in the African nations of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. A chart posted on Daily Mail claims 1,201 people in those countries tested positive for the disease and 672 have died this year. The Daily Mail says Ebola is “as infectious as flu,” a claim that is patently untrue.

As Jon Rappoport told Alex Jones on Thursday, the death rate from Ebola is nearly infinitesimal when compared to seasonal flu, which kills between three and five million people every year. Like previous “pandemic” diseases like Swine Flu and West Nile, Ebola is being exploited and exaggerated as part of a psychological operation by government.

[video=youtube;26Sk3m8Qwok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Sk3m8Qwok[/video]

The rest of the article kind of devalues the point highlighted here...but I think it's an important point- ebola, while a deadly disease, is less likely to kill you than season flu!

A lot of people are blaming the government and media for making a hype out of ebola, but to be honest, I think they're doing a good job here (in Canada) to mitigate the fear. I hardly hear anything about it!
 
I think it would be unlikely to make it worse. This vaccine is designed to prevent the virus from entering the cell to reproduce (or so I understand it). As a virus, it must enter a cell and basically force the cell to make copies of itself. Basically hijacking the cells natural process of replication. If you can block the virus from entering the cell, then it can't reproduce. Without the virus destroying our cells by hijacking them, you get better. Fairly simple when said that way. Now there are many ways that viruses can enter a cell, and many different ways to block them. You could make the virus more noticible to the immune system. Attach extra segments to the virus that provent it from passing through the cell wall. Trick the virus into thinking it has entered a cell so then it won't. And that's just a few to the best of my understanding. Now if the virus were to adapt, which seems to me the possibly more dangerous case, then it's far more likely that the virus will change the way it enters the cell. Thereby rendering the vaccine ineffective. That is unlikely to make it a worse virus, only immune to the defence we have developed. As for how a virus adapts, I'm pretty shakey in my understanding of that, so ill leave it to someone else to fill in that blank. :)
A bigger worry in my mind is the vaccine itself. They still need to do trials to see what the effects of this vaccine are and if those side effects are bad or not.

I don't know much about virology, but I do wonder about adaptation of the virus. There are several strains of it, and I wonder if the integration of a vaccine too soon will cause the virus to mutate and become stronger!

But again- this could be the copious amounts of horror movies and fiction I've seen/read! :D
 
I guess my question is:

Who is perpetuating the fear of ebola? Personally, I think it's the miseducated public. To me, people seem to think the government can do no right: they don't talk enough about it- then they're covering something up; talk too much about it- they are instilling fear. From what I've heard and read, it's people who aren't really familiar with the workings of ebola that are inciting fear.

What do you guys think??
 
I guess my question is:

Who is perpetuating the fear of ebola? Personally, I think it's the miseducated public. To me, people seem to think the government can do no right: they don't talk enough about it- then they're covering something up; talk too much about it- they are instilling fear. From what I've heard and read, it's people who aren't really familiar with the workings of ebola that are inciting fear.

What do you guys think??

Given that most people don't really have the time to leisurely research every single matter that comes spewing down the pipe, the majority get their information from the news. The news, of course, is a money-making industry first; it is backed by sponsors, lobbyists and corporations who push their own views. It has never been a primary source of information and raw data, and now, more than ever, it's becoming obvious that the information it presents comes pre-masticated, sometimes with a highly obvious slant.

More and more people are becoming aware of this and the inherent dangers of corporate bias and agenda and are wary of the way the information is presented for consumption. The end result is this kind of cognitive dissonance with people taking the news at face value and mistrusting it at the same time, which fuels a lot of confusion about what to think, what to believe.

And not many people bother doing proper research to untangle that mess. They've got busy lives. You could spend all day fact-checking on the internet on any singular issue and frankly, it can get exhausting. So at the end of the day, most people end up parroting what they hear, steadfastly adopting a bias shaped by the social or familial/cultural groups to which they belong, and absorb it into their identity. This makes it difficult to be open to other view points... especially when that view point is well represented in the media and therefore adopted by the majority... and in this way, we kind of have a cultural torus that shapes belief and in turn, our society.

I think the media as a source of information right now is a broken telephone. The 'do no right' attitude is a by-product of its questionable track-record and sensationalism. And as long as it remains at the heart of our culture and society, broken or not broken, people's attitudes towards it will shape the way we approach issues.

We're living in an information age, but it seems like we're even more confused than ever.
 
Last edited:
Given that most people don't really have the time to leisurely research every single matter that comes spewing down the pipe, the majority get their information from the news. The news, of course, is a money-making industry first backed by sponsors, lobbyists and corporations, and a source of information second. Recently, more and more people are becoming aware of this and are wary of the way the information is presented for consumption. The end result is this kind of cognitive dissonance with people taking the news at face value and mistrusting it at the same time, which fuels a lot of confusion about what to think, what to believe.

And not many people bother doing proper research to untangle that mess. They've got busy lives. You could spend all day fact-checking on the internet on any singular issue and frankly, it can get exhausting. So what ends up happening is that most people end up parroting what they hear, steadfastly adopting a bias shaped by the social or familial/cultural groups to which they belong, identify with it, posit it and by then, have to defend the stance they've adopted rather than remaining open to other information and viewpoints.

I think the media as a source of information right now is a broken telephone. The 'do no right' attitude is a by-product of its questionable track-record and sensationalism. And as long as it remains at the heart of our culture and society, broken or not broken, people's attitudes towards it will shape the way we approach issues.

We're living in an information age, but it seems like we're even more confused than ever.

Well said :) And I totally agree

It seems as though the amount of information out there is just overwhelming- especially since there's so much which is unfounded. I think it also mixes with peoples' desire to just take in the information at face value, rather than look deeper- mind you, I agree that it would be overwhelming and unhealthy to fact check all the information out there!!
 
[MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION]

regarding your comment about the americans getting the vaccine - it seems the UK agrees with you!

Ebola outbreak: British experts urge US and WHO to ‘give Africans experimental cure

Three of Britain’s leading Ebola specialists have said experimental treatments for the deadly Ebola virus must be offered to the people of West Africa, after two US aid workers were administered with the “cure” in Liberia.

The two missionaries, Dr Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, are alive and now being cared for at a specialist isolation unit in Atlanta.

Though the pair remain weak – and there is no way of knowing at this stage how much of a help the new drug has actually been – the fact that it was given to the two Americans has resulted in widespread criticism and recriminations in West Africa.

Now Peter Piot, who discovered Ebola in 1976, David Heymann, the director of the Chatham House Centre on Global Health Security and Jeremy Farrar from the Wellcome Trust have said there are in fact several drugs and vaccines under study that could be used to combat the disease.

“African governments should be allowed to make informed decisions about whether or not to use these products - for example to protect and treat healthcare workers who run especially high risks of infection,” they wrote in a joint statement.

The World Health Organization (WHO), “the only body with the necessary international authority” to allow such experimental treatments, “must take on this greater leadership role”, they said.

“These dire circumstances call for a more robust international response,” they added.

Almost 900 people have died from the Ebola virus across Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone since the latest outbreak began in February this year. Some strains can have fatality rates of up to 90 per cent, though that of the current crisis appears to be around 60 per cent.

Liberia’s assistant health minister, Tolbert Nyenswah, said that the news of Dr Brantly and Ms Writebol’s treatment had “made our job very difficult” as dying patients and their relatives in Africa request the same “cure”.

Dr Nyenswah told the Wall Street Journal: “The population here is asking: 'You said there was no cure for Ebola, but the Americans are curing it?'”

The US aid workers were given ZMapp, a drug made from antibodies produced in a lab that has never gone through human trials or been approved by the US’s FDA Food and Drug Administration.

Piot, Farrar and Heymann questioned why Africans were not being given the same chance. If the deadly virus was raging though wealthy countries, they said, medical agencies “would begin discussions with companies and labs developing these products and then make rapid decisions about which of them might be appropriate for compassionate use”.

“Experimental treatments shouldn't be rolled out generally without prior safety testing,” they said in their statement, issued in London late on Tuesday.

“But in the face of the critical challenge in West Africa, the WHO and Western medical agencies should be helping countries weigh the risks and benefits of limited deployment of the best (drug and vaccine) candidates to those in the greatest need, while continuously monitoring safety and efficacy.”

Their call for action from the World Health Organisation adds weight to the growing impetus demanding the outbreak in West Africa be brought under control, and which the UK Faculty for Public Health’s Dr John Ashton wrote about in this week’s Independent on Sunday.

On Monday the World Bank pledged up to $200 million (£120 million) in emergency funding to help Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

And though cost has been cited as one of the major restrictive factors preventing drug companies from rolling out Ebola treatments across Africa, the WHO said it “would not recommend any drug that has not gone through the normal process of licensing and clinical trials”.


I like how the Americans are claiming it as their own, when it's been developed via a Canadian lab!
 
This is so freaking scary! >_< I don't want to become a zombie! Those poor people. :/
 
Ebola has stricken third world countries with subpar health care and facilities. Do you think that the 50-60% death rate of the virus would be different in a first world country?
 
PS: I can't stop being obsessed with ebola. [MENTION=11100]flower[/MENTION] - I too don't want to become a zombie!
 
[MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION]

regarding your comment about the americans getting the vaccine - it seems the UK agrees with you!




I like how the Americans are claiming it as their own, when it's been developed via a Canadian lab!
Hey! Canada is part of the same land mass. ;)
 
Download a game called pathogen on your phone. Its actually a good representation of how difficult it would be for something really horrible to threaten society. Think about it this way, if a million people in the world were to die in the next few weeks from ebola, its still a drop in the bucket compaired to 6 billion.
 
Download a game called pathogen on your phone. Its actually a good representation of how difficult it would be for something really horrible to threaten society. Think about it this way, if a million people in the world were to die in the next few weeks from ebola, its still a drop in the bucket compaired to 6 billion.

a million people dead is a lot and sad. In a whole, it might not impact society - especially if they were spread out...but it's still a million people :*(
 
You are seriously wondering? The answer is quite plain and simple, no profit to be made.

Idisagree with this. It would be medical malpractice. One of the first rules of medicine is don't make the patient worse. With a new vaccine, there's every chance it could have a much higher lethality rate than the actual virus which would be pointless. They need to figure that out first.
 
You are seriously wondering? The answer is quite plain and simple, no profit to be made.

It was a more rhetorical question - and goes into the BBC article I posted earlier today where we need to start calling for a cure (or potential cure) to be given to Africa. You can't just harbour a cure for yourself!

...well...you can...but that's not very nice!
 
Idisagree with this. It would be medical malpractice. One of the first rules of medicine is don't make the patient worse. With a new vaccine, there's every chance it could have a much higher lethality rate than the actual virus which would be pointless. They need to figure that out first.

You have to weigh the pros and cons. It needs to be tested first on primates, and if there are successful trials, then go onto humans. The issue is knowing the longterm impacts of such a vaccine- you really won't know for a generation or so - Thalidomide is a great example of this. But at the same time, you have a press for a cure. If you're going to die, why not try a potential cure? It could save millions, right?

Malpractice suits in this situation are likely pretty low, since you would have to give your consent to receive it, which would include understanding and accepting any unknown consequences of an experimental drug.


A huge issue is accessibility- should it be given to anyone, or just those countries that can pay for it? Essentially, a vaccine for everyone would help eliminate a global threat...but if it's only given to the richer countries, we still have the potential for a pandemic.
 
You have to weigh the pros and cons. It needs to be tested first on primates, and if there are successful trials, then go onto humans. The issue is knowing the longterm impacts of such a vaccine- you really won't know for a generation or so - Thalidomide is a great example of this. But at the same time, you have a press for a cure. If you're going to die, why not try a potential cure? It could save millions, right?

Malpractice suits in this situation are likely pretty low, since you would have to give your consent to receive it, which would include understanding and accepting any unknown consequences of an experimental drug.


A huge issue is accessibility- should it be given to anyone, or just those countries that can pay for it? Essentially, a vaccine for everyone would help eliminate a global threat...but if it's only given to the richer countries, we still have the potential for a pandemic.

When I said malpractice, I didn't mean the legal term sorry. I meant mal (bad) practice meaning that the doctors who are designing the cure will want to know that their vaccine won't kill who they are trying to save. It would be bad to do otherwise.
 
When I said malpractice, I didn't mean the legal term sorry. I meant mal (bad) practice meaning that the doctors who are designing the cure will want to know that their vaccine won't kill who they are trying to save. It would be bad to do otherwise.

What if they're going to die anyways? But they might have the potential to live if their cure works?
 
I have no feelings about this. Viruses happen. They get contained. Ebola tends to contain itself pretty quickly since specific conditions need to be met in order for it to spread. You'd have to have a pretty shitty environment and such for something like that to wipe a population out, especially with the medical advancements we have now.

I think the whole Ebola fiasco falls under the same bullshit fear mongering as any number of the animal flus that have come out as well as West Nile Virus and everyone freaking out about kids not getting vaccines and now preventable disease is on the rise.

It doesn't freak me out. I don't want it should things somehow truly turn catastrophic, but we're not at that place. I think most people read a headline or two and don't think beyond the words that are written to incite a reaction. The information is out there but people choose not to seek it. I just ignore it and go on.
 
What if they're going to die anyways? But they might have the potential to live if their cure works?

It's one thing if a person is going to die anyways, it's another if you cause the death. Especially after you gave them hope. It's definitely not something I would take lightly.