Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ebola will NOT go airborne
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant

Ebola will NOT go airborne

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message
Kilt2 View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: December 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7414
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kilt2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ebola will NOT go airborne
    Posted: September 18 2014 at 7:59pm
well its highly unlikely and we should not worry about that.

Its just not that sort of bug.

Its possible - but it has to make a lot of changes.

So don't worry.

Or - worry about the flu.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/


And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2014 at 11:13pm
No virus has ever changed it's mode of transmission that dramatically - from bloodborne to respiratory. It's incredibly unlikely, and as Kilt mentioned, would require a huge number of genetic changes.

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 10:05am

     ********** IMPORTANT UPDATE **********




CIDRAP – Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy suggest respirators for all Ebola healthcare workers – aerosol transmissibility of virus in question

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/cidrap-center-for-infectious-disease-research-and-policy-suggest-respirators-for-all-ebola-healthcare-workers-aerosol-transmissibility-of-virus-in-question/


"Unclear modes of transmission. We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks"

Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 10:12am
I think it doesn't need to go through any fundamental changes because it is already transmissible in varying degrees via all the modes, airborne of sorts being the lesser but still viably there under limited circumstances. It is a true super bug.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 10:17am
And as we all saw on Discovery, the worm shaped viron actually squirmed around just like a worn. That feature alone indicates something monumental to me. It has the ability to burrow.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 12:52pm


US ARMY Says EBOLA = FLU in Airborne Stability, Needs Winter Weather To Go Airborne

http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/09/us-army-says-ebola-flu-in-airborne.html


http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/09/us-army-says-ebola-flu-in-airborne.html




Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 1:46pm
Flu makes you sneeze. Ebola doesn't (in pigs it does - which goes a long way toward explaining how Reston spread to monkeys caged a whopping 8 inches away). Respiratory transmission doesn't amount to much if a virus can't get out of it's victim's airway.
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 2:06pm

when they work with ebola in the lab

its always in a level 4


now they are telling docs and nurses

that a gown,gloves and a N95 mask is all you need ?


really ?

REALLY???


in a front line situation

you are exposed to a whole lot more virus than you are in a lab

people are actively bleeding from every orifice

virus is EVERYWHERE

something is terribly terribly wrong with what we are being told


let the CDC types just wear a gown gloves and a mask in the lab

betcha they wouldn't even think of it


CDC’s “Lesser Of Evils” Double Standard On Health Care Worker Protection Indicates They Expect a Large Ebola Outbreak In USA

http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/08/cdcs-lesser-of-evils-double-standard-on.html

“Prior to the outbreak, Ebola Biosafey Level 4 [BSL-4] regulations limited treatment of Ebola patients to only 22 hospital beds across the country which had the required BSL-4 treatment rooms and ‘space suits’.”

but now they’re telling doctors and nurses

“”Barbara Russell:…. I had that concern about that double standard. It’s very hard to convince emergency room staff and others that we just have to wear a gown, and gloves and mask.”



CIDRAP is being a whole lot more responsible than the CDC is on this


Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 2:26pm
I don't know how much of that is from Fort Detrick and how much is opinion. It is 15 years old though and would be chillingly prophetic if we found a coinfectee in cooler hemisphere sneezing out cozy and viable Ebola/flu all over. In that sence it sounds logical to me that that could hold water. My big question is why the hell isn't someone doing extensive testing on monkeys in our hemisphere with Ebola alone and with coinfection Ebola/flu in a setting simulating nature as closely as possible so we know what we're really up against. Is that really a quarter mile wide meteor heading directly for earth or just a bug on the lens? If you're right and any form of flu like transmissibility is a no-go then you'll never hear the end of kudos from me but if you're wrong then you're riding in the back with the dogs however darlings they may be. Lol
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 6:31pm
I'm the dog whisperer - I'll be fine.
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Elver View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: June 14 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 7:25pm
"EBOV infection in swine affects mainly respiratory tract, implicating a potential for airborne transmission of ZEBOV2, 6. Contact exposure is considered to be the most important route of infection with EBOV in primates7, although there are reports suggesting or suspecting aerosol transmission of EBOV from NHP to NHP" NHP = non human primate

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121115/srep00811/full/srep00811.html
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 19 2014 at 9:11pm
Some colleagues of mine wrote this article, it is very compelling because they argue that airborne be damned, when the bug is aerosolized, it still can get into you easily!

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

"The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site."
CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 1:25am
Originally posted by CRS, DrPH CRS, DrPH wrote:

And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site."
Ebola only needs 1 virus particle to infect a host. Just one! I have never heard of another virus so contagious. 

I have never fallen for the "airborne" hype.  Like Jacksdad (who has only ever spoken sense so far), I could see the errors in the Reston experiments. 

But add what Chuck (whose science I do respect) just said to the amazing stickiness and wormlike tunneling of the ebola virion.  Now take that pathogen-directly-from-hell and give it to pigs, hay fever sufferers or co infect a host with flu or a low grade sinus infection.

Hey presto!  A non airborne, airborne virus.

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT AND NOW I BELIEVE!  No, not in angels and stuff, but in a microscopic demon who needs no wings.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 5:31am


Top Expert: Ebola Turning Airborne is “Not Far-Fetched”


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/top-expert-ebola-turning-airborne-is-not-far-fetched_092014


"Since we are facing a “hyper-evolution” of the virus he sees as unprecedented, it has already obtained “trillions of throws of the genetic dice,” Osterholm emphasizes.

The virus’s “hyper-evolution” may result in a new airborne form of Ebola, which would swiftly spread across the globe. “Infections could spread quickly to every part of the globe, as the H1N1 influenza virus did in 2009, after its birth in Mexico,” writes the scientist."


Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 9:45am
In the ebola forum I posted a detail from reports that viral load needed to be high to catch Ebola via a sneeze. I stated that it was according to experts (thus not myself).
It was truthful (in that I was citing), but it wasn't the whole truth.
There was a lot that should have been said in that post, that I kept to myself because it was still being debated (transmission means, 1-10 viral load, etc.). But in that particular post my personal opinions would not have been helpful.

In the meantime, much has changed in recent days.
Reputable experts have published their arguments. Among many coming forward:

 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola 

I had a short discussion with Lisa Brosseau about transmission a few weeks ago, and I was pleased to see she had published this.

The CDC is slowly updating their SitRep pdfs to include an evolving understanding of Ebola's transmission means.

However, I find it deeply disturbing that some scientists are still touting the danger of an '"unlikely mutation" causing Ebola to "become airborne" and rampaging around the globe.
Ebola is already 'limited airborne', and as more people realize this there is going to be mass hysteria - because they've been told it would result in said rampage.
It (doesn't need to mutate) will result in nothing different from what we have right now.

Sadly, what we have now is something much worse than it had to be.
In their efforts to quell public fear and downplay the crisis early on, the various administrations (with their publicly shaming 'gags') forced the position that Ebola was less dangerous than it is - lulling governments into false security. The resulting inactions, and lack of needed precautions, have given rise to needless HCW deaths - and the mother of all diseases having free reign over a population of millions.

I've never been the prepping type.... but I am about to become one.

Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:12am
They could swab the outer filters inside the masks of health care providers, see if live virons are even getting into that location in the first place.

In the videos " saviing Dr Brantley they cleatly say that both patients viral load at time of admission was 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. The Uk case was lower.

So they had in controlled conditions 2 viral filled patients, the data they will have gathered from the environment surrounding these patients will be invaluable in studying risk of exposure and transmission....and they will/should have gathered data. Particle counts in the room, settle plates, every body fluid would have been checked, as would samples from any sneezes, and swabs from used protection suits, just to identify any particular danger zones.

So it may be able to reach the resp tract however I agree with others that this does not mean it is true airborne.

As I previously posted to become a true airborne pathogen would the virus not have to change tissue tropism and be able to infect the upper airways, i.e. the respiratory epithelium. I thought it was confined to entering immune cells such was monocytes and macrophages, and endothelium cells. It is well known monocytes and dendritic cells in the airways are very unique from other locations. They are at different differential stages and express many different surface molecules than those present in other mucosal and systemic surfaces.

Just my thoughts

HP foxp3
Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:14am
Originally posted by CRS, DrPH CRS, DrPH wrote:

Some colleagues of mine wrote this article, it is very compelling because they argue that airborne be damned, when the bug is aerosolized, it still can get into you easily!

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

"The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than
5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory
tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even
larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are
deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the
lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower,
alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible
regardless of the particle size or deposition site."



One of the most important posts since the beginning of this debate. This article is an absolute must read by all AFT and EI members! These guys are not "shade-tree mechanics". If you go back and read through many of my posts, much of what I have discussed I'm my own amature words is substantiated in this one article. You can now no longer be a credible debatuer of this subject without having first read this article. Thank you Chuck for sharing this.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:28am
Originally posted by Germ Nerdier Germ Nerdier wrote:

In the ebola forum I posted a detail from reports that viral load needed to be high to catch Ebola via a sneeze. I stated that it was according to experts (thus not myself).
It was truthful (in that I was citing), but it wasn't the whole truth.
There was a lot that should have been said in that post, that I kept to myself because it was still being debated (transmission means, 1-10 viral load, etc.). But in that particular post my personal opinions would not have been helpful.

In the meantime, much has changed in recent days.
Reputable experts have published their arguments. Among many coming forward:

 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola 

I had a short discussion with Lisa Brosseau about transmission a few weeks ago, and I was pleased to see she had published this.

The CDC is slowly updating their SitRep pdfs to include an evolving understanding of Ebola's transmission means.

However, I find it deeply disturbing that some scientists are still touting the danger of an '"unlikely mutation" causing Ebola to "become airborne" and rampaging around the globe.
Ebola is already 'limited airborne', and as more people realize this there is going to be mass hysteria - because they've been told it would result in said rampage.
It (doesn't need to mutate) will result in nothing different from what we have right now.

Sadly, what we have now is something much worse than it had to be.
In their efforts to quell public fear and downplay the crisis early on, the various administrations (with their publicly shaming 'gags') forced the position that Ebola was less dangerous than it is - lulling governments into false security. The resulting inactions, and lack of needed precautions, have given rise to needless HCW deaths - and the mother of all diseases having free reign over a population of millions.

I've never been the prepping type.... but I am about to become one.



Welcome over here as they say, to the dark side, Germ Nerdier ( ). I understand your feelings on the threat and your family situation up there. Over here you will find a wealth of preparedness information and many many more friendly and helpful people though you seem to be quite apt in figuring out much on your own. Welcome.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:30am
Same article :)

I agree it is a must-read.
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:31am
The dark side LOL!
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:37am
Originally posted by Hazelpad Hazelpad wrote:

They could swab the outer filters inside the masks of health care providers, see if live virons are even getting into that location in the first place.

In the videos " saviing Dr Brantley they cleatly say that both patients viral load at time of admission was 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. The Uk case was lower.

So they had in controlled conditions 2 viral filled patients, the data they will have gathered from the environment surrounding these patients will be invaluable in studying risk of exposure and transmission....and they will/should have gathered data. Particle counts in the room, settle plates, every body fluid would have been checked, as would samples from any sneezes, and swabs from used protection suits, just to identify any particular danger zones.

So it may be able to reach the resp tract however I agree with others that this does not mean it is true airborne.

As I previously posted to become a true airborne pathogen would the virus not have to change tissue tropism and be able to infect the upper airways, i.e. the respiratory epithelium. I thought it was confined to entering immune cells such was monocytes and macrophages, and endothelium cells. It is well known monocytes and dendritic cells in the airways are very unique from other locations. They are at different differential stages and express many different surface molecules than those present in other mucosal and systemic surfaces.

Just my thoughts

HP foxp3

It can infect epithelial cells.
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:55am
Originally posted by onefluover onefluover wrote:

Originally posted by CRS, DrPH CRS, DrPH wrote:

Some colleagues of mine wrote this article, it is very compelling because they argue that airborne be damned, when the bug is aerosolized, it still can get into you easily!

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

"The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than
5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory
tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even
larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are
deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the
lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower,
alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible
regardless of the particle size or deposition site."



One of the most important posts since the beginning of this debate. This article is an absolute must read by all AFT and EI members! These guys are not "shade-tree mechanics". If you go back and read through many of my posts, much of what I have discussed I'm my own amature words is substantiated in this one article. You can now no longer be a credible debatuer of this subject without having first read this article. Thank you Chuck for sharing this.

Thanks, Boss!  I was very glad to find that, our EOHS department is excellent! 

Please note that the technological solution they recommend (high-level PPE) would not be practical in Africa, due to the high heat/humidity, lack of access to decontamination facilities etc.  We would use this type of gear in the USA if Ebola ever landed here, but I don't see much hope for fighting Ebola in Africa using advanced PPE. 

That is a very grim prognosis, this thing might have to just burn along like the bubonic plaque did in Europe, which burned out when mortalities were so high that only genetically resistant survivors remained.  Considering that aid workers are being murdered by a frightened and distrustful populace, our options for controlling this in Africa are dwindling.  We may be approaching containment more than any other response.
CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:00am
CRS,

The solution might be impractical, but HCWs in W Africa should be advised of the risks regardless.
Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:03am
Excuse my ignorance but if it is airborne why are we not seeing epidemiological patterns suggestive of this? Particle size is interesting, centrifugal effect of nasal passage etc,   but not the only factor. Respiratory tract is exposed to millions of infectious agents, and foreign proteins everyday so it surpasses other parts of the immune system in defence tactics. It has evolved countless protective responses. It's armour and battle tactics would impress many a military strategies. Its chemical warfare alone would make the most un PC horror movie.    It is the most heavily guarded entry to the body. Very few viruses can use it and those that do tend to produce severe irritation,resulting in streaming noses thick with battleground material ,( pus dead white blood cells etc). They universally cause sneezing and coughing, none of these are documented as a predominantly Ebola.

That said I ain't taking the risk, I am stocking.

Hzp foxp
Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:42am
Been nerdier.

Can it cold infect epithelial cells...by this I mean use them as an initial point of entry which would be needed if respiratory transmission.

The consensus from pubmed and articles I have read is summed below.

Quote https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/trop.html
   In general, epithelial cells become infected only if they contact other cells that have amplify the virus such as fibroblastic reticular cells (FRC) and mononuclear cells. This would be true for skin appendages like hair follicles and sweat glands because they are heavily vascularized and have a lot of FRC networks associated with them. Liver cells and adrenal gland epithelial cells have fibroblastic reticulum as their main connective tissue and both have resident mononuclear cell phagocytes hanging on FRC cells near the blood/epithelial cell interface...end 2014


Germ Nerdier I know the virus can infect epithelium cell monolayers in culture, but I can get HSV to infect any cell in vitro if I try hard enough. However that is not accurate as it is a false system, so it doesn,t mean it is going to happen in a physiological condition. Epithelial cell layers in a plastic dish are not the same as ciliated pseudo stratified columnar epithelium present in the respiratory tract, cells which aren't stagnent on a plate but as a component of the constant mucociliary elevator.

So I know it can infect epithelial cells later in infection but was not sure if it could do it cold.

In mucosal immunology we see many pathogens enter via M cells and in areas where CCR9 positive dendritic cells actually home to the gut, disrupt the epithelial cells, and then elongate their pseudopods through gut epithelium to sample the lumen of the intestine. Some pathogen utilise this to hitch a ride into the body. Ebola has affinity for DC cells so this is one possible route through the gut.

Anyway as previously said I am not taking chance, and these are just my ramblings.
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:55am
I'm not an expert on immunology, so if sneezing has not been observed, this is a guess:

You don't see nasopharyngeal evidence (sneezing from inflammation) of an early phase immune reaction because Ebola doesn't elicit a response until late-stage infection.
Coughing, however, has been observed.

"A research team led by Sanders and collaborators from the University of Iowa established that the Zaire strain of Ebola virus could enter the epithelial cells that line the human airway in a paper published in the Journal of Virology in 2003. The experiment used a pseudotyped virus, which was built with the Ebola virus envelope proteins, or outer shell."

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q3/purdue-expert-showed-ebola-can-enter-cells-that-line-the-trachea-and-lungs-says-airborne-transmission-is-not-an-impossibility.html

Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by Germ Nerdier Germ Nerdier wrote:

Same article :)

I agree it is a must-read.


I was typing my response to Chuck (CRS, Dr PH) while you were posting yours. I'm not a fast typer. In not a slow typer. I'm a half-fast typer. Anyways, Chuck has worked directly with the authors of that article. But interesting you also found, found the value of, and posted it yourself as well. Thank you.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
Medclinician2013 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: September 17 2013
Location: Carmel
Status: Offline
Points: 9020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician2013 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 12:48pm
Would you like to repeat this and with feeling ?

Medclinician - not if but when - original
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 1:38pm
Sorry, the link is hardly visible at the bottom of my post. Here it is again:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q3/purdue-expert-showed-ebola-can-enter-cells-that-line-the-trachea-and-lungs-says-airborne-transmission-is-not-an-impossibility.html

And (sorry#2) I didn't see part of Hazelpad's post regarding plausibility over possibility. 

Note:
"We were studying at the cellular level how the virus enters cells and showed it could enter human airway epithelial cells," Sanders says. "However, there are many factors beyond its ability to enter these cells that influence how a virus is transmitted. To be airborne it must be present on tiny droplets from a cough or sneeze and must be able to live outside of the body for a certain length of time. This is not how the virus is currently known to spread, but it is evidence that it has some of the necessary components for respiratory transmission."

The paper was published in 2003. More recent studies, anectdotal evidence, and revised thinking on aerosolization, bring many to the conclusion that this well could be a factor in the current outbreak.

Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 1:50pm
Question for you Hazelpad,

Ebola isn't being suggested as a respiratory virus, so regarding modes of transmission being droplet/droplet nuclei, why does initial infection need to be respiratory if it can 'home to the gut'?

Just curious where you were going with that, as Ebola is opportunistic with many different cell types.

Your input is very insightful :)
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 1:52pm
Oh Crap! My post order is reversed. I was wondering why some comments seemed to be hanging.
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 1:53pm
Oneflu, 

Were you part of the thread/post order discussion in the other forum? What was the setting that changes it back?
Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 2:34pm
Thanks for the article and not meaning to be picky but I have 3 main worries about data being extrapolated from this 2003 study you mentioned and applied to a wild type ebola outbreak.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154009/

So this papers wasnt looking at ebola, its aim was to look for a system to deliver gene therapy direct to the airways of cystic fibrosis sufferes.

My three points of concern.

Point 1: The epithelial cells they infected were a cell line that bore little resemblance to our cells. No need to read the whole paragraph but skim read you can see how artificial the whole system was, bathed in antibiotics fed by fetal calf serum etc. Standard protocol.

Quote :airway epithelia were isolated from trachea or bronchi and were grown at the air-liquid interface as described previously (13). All preparations used were well differentiated (>2 weeks old; resistance > 1,000 Ω-cm2). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Iowa. A549 and H441 cell lines are derived from human lung carcinomas, and IB3 and HBE cell lines are transformed human airway cells. The cell lines HT1080 (ATCC 12012), HOS (ATCC CRL-1543), IB3 (34), and KB (ATCC CCL-17) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Gibco)-10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). A549 (ATCC CCL-185) cells were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium F12 (catalog no. 11320-033; Gibco)-10% FBS. H441 (ATCC HTB-174) cells were maintained in RPMI medium (Gibco)-10% FBS. HBE (5) cells were maintained in modified Eagle's medium (Gibco)-10% FBS. In addition, each medium was supplemented with penicillin (100 U/ml) and streptomycin (100 μg/ml). In the FRα-blocking studies, the cells were washed and maintained 72 h in RPMI medium lacking folic acid (Gibco; 27016-021) and 5% FBS prior to the addition of the blocking reagent...bla bka bla


So certainty not physiologically normal bronchial epithelial cells by a long shot.

Point 2: The virus used was not anywhere close to wild type Ebola, it was not Ebola. It basically a genetically modified feline immunodeficiency virus vector,which was made to express a single surface glycoprotein from Ebola Zaire strain. Not only that but they further modified this glycoprotein by deleting an expansive region from the extracellular domain thought to be heavily O glycosylated.   Quote from paper " The deletion of amino acids 309 to 489 from the EBO glycoprotein (EBOΔO) resulted in a marked 74-fold increase in titer over the average titer obtained with the wild-type EBO glycoprotein....

So this construct they used had one molecule from Ebola virus in it, and then that molecule was itself was further modified by deletion of a significant chunk of its genetic material...very far from the wild type virus in the current outbreak

Point 3 Artificial infection of the cells. So they now have a epithelium cell line, they have a construct that vaguely resembles one component of Ebola virus, how do they get them together. They bathe them at an exactly thevright concentration of cells, optimum viral particles, at an optimum temperature, for an optimum time. Lot of optimising, no mucus, no enzymes no breathing,no cilia, no coughing_ totally artificial.

So I have no problem with the aims of this paper for cystic fibrosis, but to try to deduce anything from this as relevant to natural infection of wild type Ebola is in my view a bit over ambitious.

Sorry not being picky but a lot of scared people out there.

Hzpad

PS sorry didn't quite understand your last question as I am a bit dense sometime, can you rephrase....my fault not yours.
Back to Top
Germ Nerdier View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: September 20 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3380
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Germ Nerdier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 3:27pm
Whoa..

It didn't have to be an Ebola virus as long as it used the Ebola envelope proteins, since that is what enables innoculation into a cell in the first place.

Whatever the intention of the paper, it's a moot point and not germaine to the focus on a filovirus envelope facilitating entry.

Sequence of cell type involvement in pathogenesis cannot be elucidated based on viral load of FRCs due to their role in the immune response, which filoviruses have evolved to specifically to do just that. That is what I meant by questioning your comment.

As for fear mongering: if someone can understand this exchange, they already know enough.

Finally, when I said your input was insightful, I meant it. It wasn't sarcasm.
I wish I could say the same for your closing remark.
Back to Top
onefluover View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2013
Location: Death Valleyish
Status: Offline
Points: 20151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote onefluover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by Germ Nerdier Germ Nerdier wrote:

Oneflu, 

Were you part of the thread/post order discussion in the other forum? What was the setting that changes it back?


Yes. Go up to top of thread where it says "author". To right of that is "message". Click it and then click the arrow button next to it to invert thread or undo.
"And then there were none."
Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 4:54pm
Hello again,

I am not meaning to make fur fly, but I have to disagree again on a few points. Sorry.

Firstly you say Quote : It didn't have to be an Ebola virus as long as it used the Ebola envelope proteins, since that is what enables innoculation into a cell in the first place...

I disagree for I don't think it was the Ebola envelope protein in the true wild type sense. This glycoprotein had a huge chunk taken out of it. Their words not mine were " we deleted an expansive region from the extracellular domain" and " The deletion of amino acids 309 to 489 from the protein. In Liberia etc do you think their virus has deletions of this extent in its genome. You can't think this is the same viral glycoprotein it is a genetically modified, modifications that increase infectivity.

Secondly you say quote: Whatever the intention of the paper, it's a moot point and not germaine to the focus on a filovirus envelope facilitating entry.

Again I have to disagree. The intention of the paper ( to investigate their system for gene delivery in CF patients) is not a moot point, it is the WHOLE point. All the research they have done, all their experimental design, all the modifications they have made, and the conclusions are written around their objective. If they were examining only the ability of filovirus envelope facilitating entry to respiratory epithelium in the context of a natural Ebola infection, they would not have been using genetically modified envelope proteins, except to deduce binding locations. If that had been the aim it would not have been published as the experiments do not fit that hypothesis.

Finally I have to disagree when you infer my closing remark was sarcasm. So my closing remark was about me being a bit dolly dimple sometime.....I promise you I meant that in honesty...I can be far away with the fairies at times. Two days ago we had a real important referendum here in Scotland. The instructions were to mark in pencil a cross on the paper and put it unfolded in ballot box.....me I put a tick in pen at the wrong box and fold the paper twice for good measure.....see sometimes nothing in my nogging.

Debate is good and I put no personal slant on it. For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Genuinely sorry if you felt I was being insincere, which was not my intent.

Hzp
Back to Top
Kilt2 View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: December 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7414
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kilt2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 7:02pm
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 9:14pm
Originally posted by Hazelpad Hazelpad wrote:

Excuse my ignorance but if it is airborne why are we not seeing epidemiological patterns suggestive of this?


Thank you - this has been my biggest bone of contention with regards the whole airborne issue. If it is airborne, why hasn't it acted like it and jumped out of West Africa in almost ten months? Proof of the pudding and all that...
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
drumfish View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drumfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 9:25pm
Just a thought, is there a reason this could not be a possibility.

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/house-fly-and-disease/

Flies and Disease

House flies are recognized as carriers of easily communicable diseases. Flies collect pathogens on their legs and mouths when females lay eggs on decomposing organic matter such as feces, garbage and animal corpses.

House flies carry diseases on their legs and the small hairs that cover their bodies. It takes only a matter of seconds for them to transfer these pathogens to food or touched surfaces. Mature house flies also use saliva to liquefy solid food before feeding on it. During this process, they transfer the pathogens first collected by landing on offal.

Diseases carried by house flies include typhoid, cholera and dysentery. Other diseases carried by house flies include salmonella, anthrax and tuberculosis. House flies have also been known to transmit the eggs of parasitic worms.
Back to Top
drumfish View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drumfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:05pm
I have also suggested intentional spread is a possibility. I speculate that an intentional spread could circumvent ppe and protocols while mimicking a new airborne capable trait aquired by an evolving organism. I don't know but regardless air borne, aerosolized droplets... Something seems different in that our "developed world" volunteers stated they were following established protocols to protect themselves from infection and have become infected. They attempted to contain as in past outbreaks but it spread. So if it is airborne that's new. Droplet borne probable but that would not be different than past outbreaks i.e. would not be something new maybe just proved possible with ebola. But protocols and containment seemed to work in the past.
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by Germ Nerdier Germ Nerdier wrote:

Oh Crap! My post order is reversed. I was wondering why some comments seemed to be hanging.

...maybe your computer has a virus?

CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
drumfish View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drumfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:12pm
I really wasn't being flip about house fly. When I re-read what I had posted I realized it might be misconstrued i.e. fly and airborne. But I did not mean it that way.
Back to Top
Galderan View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Galderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 20 2014 at 11:57pm
Reston was not an experiment, it was an accident. They received an infected monkey which spread the infection through the whole monkey house. It spread to sections of the lab that were only conneccted by ventilation ducts. Ebola Reston was airborne, it infected humans who developed antibodies but did not get sick. If a single virus particle can infect, someone coughs out particles, a droplet drifts through the air and is breathed in, or goes into the eye, the infection is spread. Look up the definition of airborne disease and than say that it cannot be airborne. It may not cause sneezing, but it causes violent coughing.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2014 at 1:56am
It was never conclusively proven that Reston spread by airborne transmission. The first shipment of monkeys that arrived at HRC on October 4th came from Ferlite Farms, a primate exporter in the Philippines. They were placed in quarantine in room F, and when they began to die the initial diagnosis was simian hemmorhagic fever. All of the monkeys were euthanized, and shortly after a positive test result for Ebola came back from USMRIID. In the days that followed, more deaths occurred in a separate shipment that arrived 4 days after the room F monkeys, and was quarantined in room H. That's the group that everyone assumes could only have been infected by airborne transmission through ducting connecting the rooms, but the fact is that both shipments came from Ferlite Farms at the same time that the exporter was dealing with an outbreak of hemorrhagic disease in monkeys and humans at it's facility on Mindanao. With an incubation period of 5-7 days in nonhuman primates, it's much more likely that both groups arrived four days apart sub-clinically carrying EBOR than the virus making it's way through the ducts to infect the second group. And remember that you also have to throw into the mix asymptomatically infected handlers and technicians moving freely around HRC's facility potentially infecting monkeys. There are many explanations more plausible than airborne transmission.

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2014 at 3:22am
Originally posted by jacksdad jacksdad wrote:

It was never conclusively proven that Reston spread by airborne transmission. The first shipment of monkeys that arrived at HRC on October 4th came from Ferlite Farms, a primate exporter in the Philippines. They were placed in quarantine in room F, and when they began to die the initial diagnosis was simian hemmorhagic fever. All of the monkeys were euthanized, and shortly after a positive test result for Ebola came back from USMRIID. In the days that followed, more deaths occurred in a separate shipment that arrived 4 days after the room F monkeys, and was quarantined in room H. That's the group that everyone assumes could only have been infected by airborne transmission through ducting connecting the rooms, but the fact is that both shipments came from Ferlite Farms at the same time that the exporter was dealing with an outbreak of hemorrhagic disease in monkeys and humans at it's facility on Mindanao. With an incubation period of 5-7 days in nonhuman primates, it's much more likely that both groups arrived four days apart sub-clinically carrying EBOR than the virus making it's way through the ducts to infect the second group. And remember that you also have to throw into the mix asymptomatically infected handlers and technicians moving freely around HRC's facility potentially infecting monkeys. There are many explanations more plausible than airborne transmission.

INCLUDING DROPLET.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down