Ebola. should I worry?...

[Soloma]

Would not surprise me in the least Kevin that ebola is a controlled release. Much scarier scenario and one in which I personally would still not trust vaccines, your link used as to support my stance. Not putting any synthetic life form in me, no sir.

[kevin]

Of course, this is about control. So they are playing their hand it seems as everyone knows about this ebola. That means the proverbial crap is about to hit the fan. Will you fight when they forcefully try and vaccinate you?

Much easier for them to make anyone out who refuses to be like lepers?
Or anyone who refused to fight in the first world war, give them white feathers and brand them as cowards.
Also I doubt that You would be able to recieve any insurance cover if You refuse the injection/s.
But how does anyone ( including the nurses) actually know what is in the injections?
Kevin

[LuisP]

I concur.
Partly.

I too believe in incompetence rather than omnipotence, and much much less in something requiring a murderous and secretive global agenda, requiring the participative collaboration of thousands of agents, going at it without a glitch or a leak.

But I concur only Partly, because above all of the above, I believe in the power of a very simple and prosaic thing, called Money. Or rather, Big Money. And what It can do.

That said, please read my post after this one. You will find there a link to a very well written and documented upon article that mirrors most of what I believe explains the present drama.

Returning here, to this post
I think that we are facing the truth about it not being airborne, and not just something we are “told” and have to believe in blind faith.
This thing was discovered in 1976 by Belgian scientists and studied worldwide since then. Symptoms described all along do not include its spreading through the air.

Just out of curiosity – and to give substance to my belief - I surfed a bit on “oldies” about Ebola and found this report from 2011 inside “The Lancet, Volume 377, Issue 9768, Pages 849 - 862, 5 March 2011” which can be read here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 40-6736(10)60667-8/fulltext. It is a very detailed and comprehensive science paper on this thing.

And it states “Ebola virus seems to enter the host through mucosal surfaces, breaks, and abrasions in the skin, or by parenteral introduction. Most human infections in outbreaks seem to occur by direct contact with infected patients or cadavers. Infectious virus particles or viral RNA have been detected in semen, genital secretions,and in skin of infected patients".

No mention whatsoever of airborne contamination. But fact remains that it prescribes “protective clothing and respirators” when dealing with the beast, but then again, that’s SOP when dealing with any of these kind of beasts.

So, it is not airborne, but obviously that a sneeze can be seen as a “delivery system” for it to spread out, like in, an horrendous sneeze full of spit, saliva droplets and nasal excretions spewing forth to fell upon somebody who will then lick it off or rub some open wound with.

But, again, that is a very different thing from being contaminated just because I’m inside a room with, or sitting beside, an infected guy that is doing nothing else except …. breathing in and out !

Then again, I might have preferred not to have found this report….

Why ?
For I now know that there isn’t such a thing as “A Ebola Virus” ... but several !

Five “species”, to be exact - the Sudan (SEBOV), the Zaire (ZEBOV), the Côte d'Ivoire (CIEBOV), the Bundibugyo (BEBOV) and the Reston (REBOV) Ebola viruses. First four are African and the fifth is from the Philippines.
All Ebola, but of “genetically and serologically distinct species”. To my chagrin, the deadliest is the Zaire one. Which, yes, is “operational” in that part of Africa where Angola lies.

Ebola killing grounds

Anyway, inside the report, I found this very interesting piece of information which I’d like to share :

1- Almost all human cases are due to the emergence or re-emergence of Zaire Ebola virus in regions of Gabon, Republic of the Congo, and DRC, and of Sudan Ebola virus in Sudan and Uganda …. (since) … only one outbreak of Bundibugyo Ebola virus has occurred, and the Côte d'Ivoire virus has not yet re-emerged since the original episode in 1994.
2 - Within the genus Ebola virus, infections with the Zaire Ebola virus species have the highest case-fatality rates (60—90%) followed by those for the Sudan Ebola virus species (40—60%). On the basis of one outbreak, case-fatality rates for Bundibugyo strain infections are estimated to be only 25%. The only reported person infected with Côte d'Ivoire Ebola virus became ill but survived. Reston Ebola virus is deemed non-pathogenic for man, but laboratory tests have documented the occurrence of infection.
3- Case management is based on isolation of patients and use of strict barrier nursing procedures, such as protective clothing and respirators. These procedures have been sufficient to rapidly interrupt transmission in hospital settings in rural Africa.

So, I wonder, are all these widespread cases from a “signature” of any of the 5 above identified (till 2011) “species ? Those that “strict nursing procedures have been sufficient to rapidly interrupt transmission in hospital settings” ?

The answer to that ridicule double question is both (ahem) Yes and No - not surprisingly, I’d say …. because I kind of expected it.

Yes, on one hand, because it is the Zaire “species” that is at work, through a relative now being called “The Guinean Strain” (http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/ebola-the ... -epidemic/).
No, on the other, because strict nursing procedures are no longer able to “rapidly interrupt transmission”, as that poor Spanish nurse example now conveniently shows.


So,
I say again – When does a drug from a big pharma pops up so that we can stop this show and move on to the next ?

[Soloma]

Yes, all of this need serious discernment. Look where accepting the propaganda has gotten us.

[LuisP]

I found the following article, let’s say …. interesting.

Very well written and documented, and extremely … extremely informative. Its Author is no fool, nor is he a doomsayer.

He just knows a lot about what he is talking about – Ebola’s recent and widespread Africa outbreak.

It is extensive and You guys should take some 5 minutes aside, and read it.

It will be worth your while, make no mistake.

That said,
I do not subscribe to every thing the Author says.
Just the overwhelming majority of it.

Enjoy : http://counterpsyops.com/2014/08/12/the ... campaigns/

[LuisP]

Regarding the link above given in my first post to "The Lancet" article, after publishing my post I saw that it will not work.

To get to it, follow these steps :
(1) in a window of your browser, paste this http://dx.doi.org, then
(2) in the window that opens, paste this 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)

....sorry about all this, but a straight link won't work. Seems like a "defense mechanism" of the site.

[Soloma]

If it is essentially so difficult to transmit, then why all the fuss?

Luis, incompetence is always the excuse.

[kevin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ec4uvUn ... NQ&index=5
Mr Gates.
Kevin

[Soloma]

Exactly Kevin, bizzarro world. Down is up and wrong is right.

[StarCat]

Protective clothing is termed "standard precautions." Often, the extent needed of standard precautions is gloves. In the case of something like Ebola, which is a hemorrhagic fever disorder, the chance of being spattered with body fluids is high. In a case like that, standard precautions include mask, gown and goggles, in addition to gloves. If actual respirators, not surgical masks are required, it indicates a concern that something could possibly aerosolize and be transmitted through a standard surgical mask. TB does that, which is why a fitted particulate respirator us required. Mold is the same way. On the plus side, that type of mask is easily obtainable a big box hardware retailer.

Until the pathogen reservoir is identified, Ebola will be difficult to contain and treat.

Kevin, as to your question, the nurse don't have any way of knowing what's in the vial or the syringe. We log the information on the label. We hope it's accurate. The vials are created or pre filled syringes drawn up, in a pharmacy clean room. We have to take the word of the pharmacy that it's correct. Things can and do get tampered with. A case in point being the surgical technician at Rose Hospital who passed along Hep C to a number of people. She drew pain medication out of the vial in the O.R., injected herself, then used the same needle to refill the vial with saline. The patients didn't get their pain medication, and she exposed them to Hep C, which is a blood borne pathogen.

Cat