Thread: Obama Doing Nothing to Protect America from Ebola Outbreak

This is something to ponder....

Why Is the Government Reconstituting Deadly Viruses?



The “Spanish” flu pandemic of 1918 and 1919 caused the deaths of 20-50 million people worldwide and an estimated 675,000 in the U.S. The virus had a mortality rate of approximately one percent to all who were exposed.
The 1918 flu has been described as capable of sickening and killing a person on the same day. The virus is an H1N1 Type A influenza. Symptoms of infection were similar to the regular flu, but it is actually far more severe than the typical, seasonal flu. The main dangers lie in contracting viral pneumonia leading to acute respiratory distress and subsequent death. As the reader reaches key passages below, one has to wonder if the respiratory distress from the Spanish Flu are being reconstituted in the present Enterovirus 68?

In the immediate future, our society may wish we would have followed the old axiom, “Let sleeping dogs lie”, because in an act of extreme insanity, the virus has been reconstituted, by the Center for Disease Control researchers. The reconstituted virus was obtained from frozen tissue samples from a female who died from the virus in the 1918 outbreak.

In my unqualified personal opinion, I think this is insane. Even the New York Times questions the wisdom of such an action as have many scientists.
What If the 1918 Flu Were to Get Released?

I am sure you are wondering the same thing that I was wondering as I was doing research for this article. Just how bad could the 1918 flu pandemic become if the reconstituted virus were to be released into the general population in 2014?

In 1918, the world’s population was a mere 1.8 billion people. The population of the United States was 103 million people. Today, the world’s population is 7.1 billion and the population of the United States is 310 million people. If we simply did a geometric projection of the 1918 flu, assuming a current today, it would kill over two million in the United States and about 100 million worldwide. However, pandemics do not spread in a geometric progression as the transmission would be asymmetrical.

Today, the world is a far different place than it was 100 years ago. The country and the world are far more mobile. In the event of a local outbreak, it is not likely that the flu could be contained because of air travel. Even the most astute researchers would not realize what was being dealt with until after the first several deaths. Subsequently, the alarm would not be sounded for at least one to two weeks. By then, grounding air travel and limiting civilian mobility would not make any difference. That means in the present Ebola and EV-D68 crisis, it is too late to contain these viruses. They are going to run their course, mutate, and even become more deadly.

Let me remind you, the US has only 2.5 million doses of Tamiflu. The US spends an inordinate amount of money in funding the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health and it looks like a big waste of resources and money. After researching this article, I have come to believe that we waste an inordinate amount of money pretending we can turn back mother nature, when in fact, we cannot. In fact, before you are done reading this article, you should have some very serious doubts as to whether humanity is under a deliberate attack from the forces of the CDC and the NIH. .

Let’s just consider that just for the sake of argument that if the reconstituted 1918 flu were to be released, chaos would reign supreme. Fear would be rampant. We have already reached that level with Ebola. Last Thursday, my son’s PE class was playing dodge ball and the kids began to yell that the ball had Ebola and the intensity of the game in terms of being struck by the “Ebola” ball greatly increased the intensity of the game.
As I previously pointed out that in previous years and under a more virtuous government, there would be decisive action taken. Clearly, in the past, a medical emergency would be declared. Emergency rooms, hospitals and doctor’s offices would quickly be overwhelmed. Air travel would be halted. The economy would be in grave danger because commerce would virtually cease due to the fact that nearly everything we buy is shipped. Home confinements would be ordered and effectively martial law would be declared. However, I am sure we do not to have worry, nobody from the Obama administration would ever find the idea of a false flag pandemic to be desirable, would they? Before you complete this article, some of your will be answering in the affirmative.

The fact is that Ebola and EV-D68 are going to take their course. There is nothing that can be done.

The treason that is coming from the White House with the failure to close air travel from West Africa and to close the border, is notable and it is too late.

Just When You Don’t Think It Can Get Any Worse

Under the phrase, “What the hell are we thinking”, have you heard that scientists who are using scrapings from the teeth of two 1500-year old corpses to re-create the bacteria that caused the Bubonic Plague and the Justinian Plague? What is known is that if the plague ever becomes airborne, people could die within 24 hours. Biowarfare is a potential use for this threatening organism, as would be any false flag attack.
A release of the Bubonic Plague and the Justinian Plague would produce catastrophic results and make the reconstituted 1918 Flu appear to be a mere case of the sniffles. This video paints a frightening picture. Is this what will follow the Enterovirus 68 and Ebola?

Do We Have Anything to Worry About?


If you only believe in coincidences, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. However, if you believe things happen for a reason, and purpose then you might want to consider what I brought out several months ago when I mentioned that FEMA, earlier in the year, were advertising for contractors who are able to supply medical biohazard disposal capabilities, along with 40 yard dumpsters, to go with 1,000 tent hospitals across the United States. The emergency rollout of these services must be able to be completed within 24-48 hours. Don’t be fooled by the rapid rollout of resources. As I pointed out, before the authorities realized they had a potential pandemic on their hands, it would be too late to contain the damage.
Whatever, could be coming must be very big because FEMA is also seeking to obtain 200,000 doctors’ scrubs to be delivered to the 1,000 tent hospitals. That adds up to 20 extra hospitals per state. Aren’t these numbers a tantamount admission that whatever is coming will quickly overwhelm the existing medical services?
FEMA was also ordering portable showers and toilets, so these facilities would appear that they will be taking on an air of permanence. Can there be any doubt that FEMA is ramping up the National Disaster Preparedness Program? The sheer numbers clearly point to the enormous size of the coming event.
The Suspicious Worldwide Emergence of Multiple Forms of the Enterovirus 68 and Ebola

Rafal Tokarz, Cadhla Firth, Shabir A. Madhi, Stephen R. C. Howie, Winfred Wu, Amadou Alpha Sall, Saddef Haq, Thomas Briese,and W. Ian Lipkin, have all documented the sudden appearance of Enterovirus (EV-D6 in 1962. The virus seemingly came from nowhere lending credence to the notion that the virus was artificially developed. Also, it is suspicious that the virus only manifested in 26 cases that were reported between 1970 and 2005 (Khetsuriani et al., 2006). Now it is rampant!
The original clinical presentation of EV-D68 infections in the 1962-2005 outbreaks ranged from mild illness to complications requiring hospitalization and, in rare instances, death. The virus has morphed at an exceptional rate and has become very dangerous. The rate of viral adaptation is notable and does not appear to follow expected mutation scheme. This lends rise to conspiracy theories which state that the virus was artificially developed prior to 1962 and was purposely and dramatically mutated just prior to 2005 when we began to see a dramatic rise in the number of presenting cases as well as the lethality of these cases.
The Poliovirus is composed of an RNA genome and it has manifested within EV-D68. It is only one of four mutations of the EV-D68 virus. Yet, for some reason, the Poliovirus, the most deadly, is leading the way in EV-D68 infectious cases. The odds are one in four that this development is due to chance. This fact should make every researcher ask questions. The odds of natural selection do not favor EV-D68 manifesting in its present form of the Poliovirus. It looks like this virus has had help in mutating in order to make it more deadly.
Along the same lines, Ebola also follows a very suspicious path and has a questionable past. Presently, there’s no treatment for Ebola. The most that can be done for a patient is what’s called “supported therapy,” which entails balancing fluids and electrolytes, blood pressure, oxygen, and monitoring for other infections. Like the EV-D68, the Ebola virus seemingly appeared out of nowhere in 1976, as Ebola was discovered by the Ebola River in Zaire. Just like EV-D68 there is no suitable explanation on how or why both viruses suddenly appeared and then became so dangerous.

One theory that some doctors that I have interviewed believe is probable is that many of the treatments directed towards both EV-D68 and Ebola have tried to work by blocking the RNA one-time sequencing and adaptation. These medical sources privately state that this would cause the virus to mutate in an out of control manner, because RNA only attempts to bind to a virus one time, unlike its counterpart DNA.
I have further been told by my sources that the current Ebola vaccine being developed by GSK works on this same principle. My fear is that the virus will morph from one that can infect its victims through aerosolized and close proximity airborne means within tightly contained spaces such as an airplane or a restroom, to one in which the virus can remain airborne over vast distances. If these viruses becomes airborne, in the same manner as the Flu, it will be Katie-bar-the-door as there will nowhere that we can run and hide from these deadly effects.

The CDC Patent Is Explained

The morphing and mutation of Ebola explains why the CDC would be allowed to patent the virus. In other words, it has been artificially constituted to mutate from its original state. Therefore, the CDC was not allowed to patent something from nature, they were allowed to patent something that had been purposely mutated.

Are Vaccines Complicit in the Spread of Deadly Viruses?

In the recent briefing with my sources, I was also told that the illegal immigrant children that came into America presented with none of these RNA type of viruses IF THEY HAD NEVER BEEN VACCINATED. Subsequently, my sources believe that previous vaccinations served as a trigger event to initiate positive replication of a virus within a host. The American public is in desperate need of qualified biologists to investigate these allegations.
Death’s Ground

Viruses have survived for years by being placed upon Death’s Ground. However, it is now humans that have been placed on Death’s Ground. We have a rare opportunity to expose the severe corruption in the history of the United States. There is what you know and what you can prove. The case implicating the CDC for treason against the American people is circumstantially strong. However, if we can piece together the origins of these pathogens and correlate them with the function of vaccines and the inaction of the CDC, the NIH and the Obama administration as a whole, we can wake up a lot of Americans.
Although I no longer believe that we can thwart the spread of the EV-D68 and Ebola viruses, we might be able to call enough public attention to the future viruses coming from the reconstituted Spanish Flu and Justinian’s Plague,to force a temporary retreat by the globalists. We do not have much time to react because recent actions of the elite would suggest that we are going to be hit with wave after wave of attacks from these viruses.
Dave Hodges is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show.


http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/10...le/#more-38080

Great News! Ultraviolet Light Robot Kills Ebola In Two Minutes!




Published on Oct 11, 2014
http://www.undergroundworldnews.com
The reason I'm covering this medical technology is because I'm seriously impressed with the concept and the green technology behind it. The Xenex unit generates UV light using xenon -- one of the noble gases -- rather than toxic mercury. So there's no toxic mercury to deal with, even when disposing of the equipment after its useful life.

So many of the approaches to disinfection in hospitals today are based on harsh, toxic chemicals that pose a secondary risk to the health of hospital patients and staff. But UV light emitted by the Xenex robot leaves no chemical residue whatsoever and requires no chemical manufacturing plant to manufacture. This is truly "light medicine" because it disinfects using specific frequencies of light.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047216_Ebo...

Rockefeller Foundation’s Futurist Paper Details ‘Ebola Plot’

October 8, 2014 By 21wire

21st Century Wire says…

It’s the stuff of Sci-Fi horror, and it’s no longer confined to Hollywood…


While elite US and European families like the Rockefellers, along with their dynastic underlings like Bill Gates (image, above) continue their obsession with over-population, while investing heavily in vaccines and dispensaries in the Third World, terms continue to become blurred by evermore deceptive labeling of seemingly artificial threats:

“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”

Considering current events, this should be a subject of concern to the public at large…

The article below, by author Shepard Ambellas, looks at this influential US foundation/think tank’s idea, or future scenario where a ‘New World’ is be formed following a major biological pandemic. The prestigious Rockefeller Foundation appears to have already mapped out our future for us:

“The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.”

The present Ebola scare is fast fitting perfectly into Rockefeller’s ‘Flu pandemic’ mind-scaping exercise. As 21WIRE reported last week, the US is setting the pace for hyping the Ebola scare, but at the same time helping to conceal the true nature and the lab-based pedigree of this latest deadly outbreak in West Africa. When you combine this with this with traditional Rockefeller funding and support for global government and the eugenics agenda, it’s not hard to see how a pandemic like Ebola could help to fast-track long-term goals and objectives of the Establishment’s family-owned cartels.

The naysayers might be shocked at the possibility of a Big Pharma Ebola, or other pandemic conspiracy, but it would be naive to think that there’s not a profit motive at work here.

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966), founder of Planned Parenthood.

Eugenics is based the idea that people or races deemed inferior to western Europeans, and even the poor European underclasses, should be gradually culled in what advocates call ‘population control’. Sadly, eugenics, or neoeugenics thinking is still very prevalent among elites in Europe and North America who consider themselves the rightful rulers of a planetary fifedom, and many critics have pointed to foundations and foundation-funded racist roots of organizations like Planned Parenthood, and many others, as being the main instruments of this toxic social engineering agenda. Author Aaron Dykes reports in detail here:

“Following World War II, Eugenics was re-branded to cast of its associations with the Nazis, and emerged, as it were, in the form of such social policy topics as “population control,” “family planning,” abortion/Planned Parenthood, health care, various types of genetics, even laced in between such screeds as global warming/climate change – which leads to arguments about reducing the burden of over-population upon the earth.”

During a TED talk in 2010, software billionaire and vaccine magnate Bill Gates publicly alluded his preferences when it comes to depopulation:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Already, US authorities are rolling out Ebola screening for passengers on all US flights, and a recent case in Spain has sparked greater calls to ban any flights from West Africa to Europe and North America. Many will applaud authorities for their vigilance against a potentially deadly pandemic, but events take on another dimension of concern when viewed in the context of elite institution predictive reports, like “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”, by the Rockefeller Foundation.



Rockefeller Foundation fictional scenario depicts pandemic to be used for “top-down government control”

Current Ebola outbreak predicted, fictionalized as “flu”

By Shepard Ambellas
Intellihub.com

A Rockefeller Foundation white paper published in May of 2010 titled, Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, takes a look at hypothetical future scenarios which may be used to benefit privy globalist corporations, businessmen and organizations at a later time.

Shockingly published in the Scenario Narratives section on page 18, titled Lock Step, the Rockefeller Foundation nearly hit the nail on the head with their futuristic and fictitious scenario. I mean what are the chances? Come on. It literally follows lockstep.
An excerpt from page 18 reads:
“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain originating from wild geese was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”
Basically, the publication is insinuating that a new world will be formed after a pandemic strikes, allowing “top-down government control” and “more authoritarian leadership”. And you know what? They may not be that far off.
The white paper goes on to fantasize how the Chinese government best dealt with the pandemic as their quarantine and forced detention methods were stringent.



Ladies and gentlemen, this paper lays out the elites entire plan to cull a good chunk of the Earth’s population which was also pointed out in my film Shade (2013).Source: Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development – The Rockefeller Foundation

Read original article and more on this subject at Intellihub.com

READ MORE EBOLA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Ebola Files

READ MORE EUGENICS NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Eugenics Files

Before It's News


Shared publicly - 12:37 PM
#Ebola





Ebola fallout: Louisiana State Attorney General seeks restraining order to keep Duncan’s ashes out of state http://b4in.org/h9vx

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said late Sunday that he will seek a temporary restraining order to stop the incinerated belongings of Dallas Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan from being brought to a Louisiana landfill.

However, there is no evidence that this would spread the dreaded disease. The items include linens, carpets and bedding from Duncan’s apartment. Six truckloads of the “potential Ebola-contaminated material”” were burned at a facility in Port Arthur, Texas, on Friday, Caldwell said in a statement.

The ashes are planned to be brought to a hazardous-waste landfill in Louisiana, but Caldwell is trying to stop that from happening. His office is completing an application to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the material from being brought to the landfill, and expects to file it Monday morning.

The attorney general’s office is also sending a “demand letter” to Texas and federal officials, as well as private contractors who are involved, requesting additional information. Caldwell said in a statement that “the health and safety of our Louisiana citizens is our top priority.

There are too many unknowns at this point, and it is absurd to transport potentially hazardous Ebola waste across state lines,” he said. “This situation is certainly unprecedented, and we want to approach it with the utmost caution. We just can’t afford to take any risks when it comes to this deadly virus.”

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says incineration is the appropriate way to handle this type of waste, and that Ebola-associated waste is no longer infectious when properly incinerated.

The disease is spread through an infected person’s blood or bodily fluids such as urine, saliva, sweat and semen, or infected animals. It is not spread through air or water.

More http://b4in.org/h9vx





Before It's News's photos







What does he know that the rest of us don't??

Ebola 'patient zero' fled Liberia with intention to enter USA as a survival strategy

Monday, October 13, 2014 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) When Thomas Eric Duncan abruptly left Liberia and came down with Ebola shortly after entering the US, many questions were raised. Did Duncan already know that he had Ebola? Did he travel swiftly to the US as a survival strategy? How did Ebola "patient zero" manage to bypass customs and board multiple flights without being questioned by Liberian officials and US customs in the midst of a viral pandemic?

Now the details are emerging in one of Liberia's largest newspapers, the Liberian Daily Observer. According to his former boss, Duncan had contact with a symptomatic Ebola patient four days before heading to the US and "knew he had Ebola." Reportedly, Duncan left his job abruptly as a survival strategy. An interview with Duncan's former boss, Henry Brunson, was published in the Observer. Brunson, along with an unnamed coworker, profess that Duncan knew of his condition and abruptly boarded a plane out of Monrovia, Liberia, to seek treatment in Dallas. Brunson told the paper, "If he were in Liberia, he was going to surely die." The symptomatic pregnant woman whom he was helping has since passed away along with other members of her family. If he would have stayed, he would have likely died right along with her. His boss said he was "glad" that Duncan could make it to a country with adequate medical resources before it became too late.

Coworkers agree that Duncan knew he had Ebola

His boss wasn't the only one to confirm Duncan's intentions. A FedEx worker in Monrovia told the Observer that Duncan knew that he had Ebola. The man knew Duncan because Duncan worked as a driver for Brunson at SafeWay Cargo, a FedEx contractor. SafeWay Cargo recently confirmed that Duncan was employed as a personal driver for the company's general manager. According to coworkers, Duncan acquired an American visa in mid-September after being in a car accident and "did not care and never returned to work afterwards."

Upon hearing the interviews, the Observer called out Duncan's abrupt move to the US as a "desperate attempt to survive."

Additionally, author Omari Jackson wrote that, "A source at FedEx in Monrovia said Mr. Duncan apparently knew he was suffering from the disease and that his best chance of survival was reaching to the United States."

Liberian government intends to prosecute Duncan

The Liberian government now intends to prosecute Duncan for lying to them about whether he had come in contact with a symptomatic Ebola patient before leaving the country. Liberian officials now have documentation that Duncan lied to escape the country. If Duncan did have direct knowledge about having Ebola, he may have knowingly put several thousands of people at risk as he escaped to America for treatment. If he knowingly violated screening procedures at the Monrovia airport, he could be found guilty of lying to Liberian officials, a high crime that also put several thousands of more people at risk.

Learn all these details and more at the FREE online Pandemic Preparedness course atwww.BioDefense.com

Sources:

http://www.breitbart.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047231_Eb...#ixzz3G3XQ6dl9

Modern Day "Typhoid Mary", or shall we call him "Ebola Duncan"

O’Reilly Calls on CDC Head to Resign: 'Have a Little Dignity'

Back to Breitbart TV


O'Reilly on Ebola, 10/13/14

Breitbart Non-Syndicated




on Breitbart TV 13 Oct 2014

On Monday’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly had an exchange with Fox News senior political contributor Brit Hume over Center for Disease Control director Dr. Thomas Frieden, who O’Reilly was very down on.

Hume was skeptical of what Frieden’s resignation may accomplish in terms of improving the situation. However, O’Reilly was steadfast on his desire to see Frieden go.
Partial transcript as follows:
O’REILLY: But Frieden is the guy who is saying it. Doesn't that concern you? Frieden is putting the preposterous crap out there. They couldn't get aid in there. Like, they don't have transports to get military and medical personnel in? Of course they do.
HUME: I have my doubts of whether this is a decision that's being made by Frieden.
O’REILLY: It isn't. He’s a puppet. He’s a puppet. A mouthpiece.

HUME: Look, he’s a subordinate official within a larger government who is, you know, who's sticking to the policies that have been outlined above him, as far as i can tell --
O’REILLY: Yeah, that's right.
HUME: -- which is I don’t know that getting rid of him makes a difference.
O’REILLY: What do we want a puppet for? Resign. Have a little dignity, Frieden. Have a little dignity -- misleading the American public. Come on, Brit! I mean, this is life and death for some people.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor



video at link below

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...&utm_term=More

Mother of Soldier Being Deployed to Africa to Fight Ebola EVISCERATES Obama


by Sean Brown / on October 12, 2014 at 7:35 pm /


In the wake of the Obama administration’s decision to deploy troops to Liberia to aid in combating the deadly Ebola virus, the mother of one of the soldiers heading to Africa is speaking out against it, and she’s quite unhappy.
Judy Turner spoke with WND about her anger with Obama’s decision, saying that she finds herself “constantly amazed” at the many different ways this administration finds “to put my military son’s life in danger.”
Turner is upset that Obama is recklessly sending troops to Africa to deal with the disease because they lack the proper training.
“They are not medical units; they are not trained medically,” she said. “They are not social workers. My son has said before that he’s not a peacekeeper and he’s not a medical missionary. He says he doesn’t want to be. So, why are doing this? What is the purpose? Tell me!”
Turner knows a thing or two about hazardous materials after working in a nuclear power plant and having to follow safety procedures.
“It was a process that I had to go through, and it took at least two people to help me go through putting on the protective gear for radiation. I know what that kind of process entails, and he’s never been taught that. We had to put on protective gear to cover every inch of skin. We had to put on special booties and we had to know how to put on all of that gear,” she explained.
The Department of Defense has said that the soldiers will be outfitted with protective gear, but Turner questions if they’ll be thorough enough with their precautions.

“Are they going to train him? How much training is he going to get, and how much training are the other soldiers going to get? Are they going to double and triple glove? Are they going to require oxygen gear? And if so, how long is their supply going to last?” Turner said.
To date, the lethal Ebola virus has claimed over 4,000 lives in West Africa, and has up to a 90 percent fatality rate, which is where Turner’s fears stem from. After her son’s questionable deployment to Afghanistan in 2013, she’s questioned Obama’s decisions regarding the military.
“It was in 2013. What were they doing there? What was their mission? They didn’t have a clear mission, and I didn’t understand why he was sent there again,” she said. “They couldn’t shoot back unless they could pinpoint the person who was shooting at them, because they weren’t supposed to hurt any of the civilians.”
Turner also has quite the reasonable explanation for Obama’s decision regarding troop deployment to Liberia. She thinks that he just woke up in the middle of the night and said, “‘Oh, I know, we’ll send the military. That’s what we’ll do.”
“He never consults anyone; he just makes these decisions with no input,” she charged.
After watching nearly seven years of incompetence, it would appear as if she’s right. Unfortunately, horrible decisions are patterned behavior with this administration so the only end we have to look forward to is 2016, which can’t get here fast enough.
What do you think about the troop deployment to Africa?

- Don’t forget to “like” me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter! -

http://madworldnews.com/mother-soldier-africa-ebola/

There were Perhaps a Hundred Case Reported Since 1962,
And Now There is Reportedly OVER 1,000 in 12 States!!!
For Those Not Bright Enough to Figure Sh*T Out…
Allow Me to Tell You How Barry Soetoro Rates!!!
~~~***~~~***~~~***~~~
http://youtu.be/B1leGSYbfes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 31, 2014
Executive Order -- Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
REVISED LIST OF QUARANTINABLE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 264(b) of title 42, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13295. Based upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Acting Surgeon General, and for the purposes set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 13295 of April 4, 2003, as amended by Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005, section 1 of Executive Order 13295 shall be further amended by replacing subsection (b) with the following:

"(b) Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled. This subsection does not apply to influenza."

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Information Source@
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...cable-diseases

Dallas nurses describe Ebola hospital care: 'There was no protocol'

Los Angeles Times
Tina Susman and Geoffrey Mohan 7 hrs ago


© LM Otero/AP Photo A hazmat worker cleans outside the apartment building of a hospital worker, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2014, in Dallas.
REPORTING FROM DALLAS - A Liberian man who arrived by ambulance at a Dallas hospital with symptoms of Ebola sat for "several hours" in a room with other patients before being put in isolation, and the nurses who treated him wore flimsy gowns and had little protective gear, nurses alleged Tuesday as they fought back against suggestions that one of their own had erred in handling him.

The statements came as Nina Pham, a 26-year-old nurse at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, fought off the Ebola virus after contracting it from the Liberian, Thomas Eric Duncan. The statements by the Dallas hospital nurses were read by representatives of the Oakland-based group National Nurses United.

RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, said the nonunionized Texas nurses could not identify themselves, speak to the media independently or even read their statements over the phone because they feared losing their jobs. In a conference call, questions from the media were relayed to the unknown number of nurses by National Nurses United representatives, and the responses were read back to reporters.

DeMoro said all of the nurses had direct knowledge of what had transpired in the days after Duncan arrived at the hospital on Sept. 28.

Among other things, they said that Duncan "was left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present."

When a nurse supervisor demanded that he be moved into isolation, the supervisor "faced resistance from other hospital authorities," the nurses said.

They described a hospital with no clear guidelines in place for handling Ebola patients, where Duncan's lab specimens were sent through the usual hospital tube system "without being specifically sealed and hand-delivered. The result is that the entire tube system, which all the lab systems are sent, was potentially contaminated," they said.

"There was no advanced preparedness on what to do with the patient. There was no protocol; there was no system. The nurses were asked to call the infectious disease department" if they had questions, they said.

The nurses said they were essentially left to figure things out for themselves as they dealt with "copious amounts" of body fluids from Duncan while wearing gloves with no wrist tapes, gowns that did not cover their necks, and no surgical booties. Protective gear eventually arrived, but not until three days after Duncan's admission to the hospital, they said.

The nurses' allegations conflict with what hospital officials have been saying since Duncan's admission: that they have strict protocols in place for handling such patients and that a mistake led to Pham becoming infected while she treated him.

The hospital released the following statement after the nurses' comments:
"Patient and employee safety is our greatest priority and we take compliance very seriously. We have numerous measures in place to provide a safe working environment, including mandatory annual training and a 24-7 hotline and other mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting. Our nursing staff is committed to providing quality, compassionate care, as we have always known, and as the world has seen firsthand in recent days. We will continue to review and respond to any concerns raised by our nurses and all employees."

DeMoro said the nurses came forward and asked Nurses United to publicize their statements out of anger they were being blamed for what had happened to their colleague.

The nurses statements come as an additional 76 healthcare workers who were involved in the treatment of Duncan are being watched for symptoms of Ebola and as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pledged to improve its response to hospitals in the event of more Ebola cases.

The new group is in addition to the 48 people who have been monitored since Duncan was first diagnosed with Ebola symptoms after arriving in Dallas last month, Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday. No one in the original group, which includes family and friends of Duncan, has developed Ebola symptoms, and they now are two-thirds of the way through the period of greatest risk of becoming infected.

Frieden also announced the creation of a rapid response team that could be sent to any hospital where an Ebola case arises. The team would also work to protect healthcare workers.

Frieden said he wished he had sent such a team to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where Duncan was treated and died last week.

"We did send some expertise in infection control," Frieden told reporters earlier in the day. "But I think we could, in retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, have sent a more robust hospital infection control team and been more hands-on with the hospital from Day One about exactly how this should be managed."

Pham's condition was upgraded Tuesday to good. Officials are investigating how she became infected but have not yet identified a specific error in protocol, he said.
Frieden said there was only one known contact for the nurse and that person was in isolation but has not developed any symptoms.

A spokeswoman for the eye care company Alcon confirmed the contact was one of its employees.

"An Alcon associate was admitted to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday, Oct. 12, and is being monitored for potential signs and symptoms of the Ebola virus, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol. This measure was taken due to the fact that the associate was in contact with the Texas Health Presbyterian healthcare worker who has recently tested positive for the virus. The Alcon associate has not shown any signs or symptoms of the Ebola virus," said spokeswoman Elizabeth Harness Murphy.

Tensions have been increasing among healthcare workers since Pham contracted the virus.

"We understand there is a lot of anxiety among" healthcare workers, Texas Health Commissioner David Lakey told reporters at the same briefing.

The latest group to be monitored comes as officials said they have cast a wide net: 76 people who may have had contact with Duncan or his blood products. Ebola is spread through direct contact with a symptomatic person or his bodily fluids.

Frieden said the stepped-up response team would include some of the world's leading experts in how to care for Ebola patients and protect healthcare workers. The new team would examine the facilities, as well as help train healthcare workers on the use of protective equipment and other issues such as hazardous waste management.

Pham's infection has worried nurses around the country, said DeMoro of National Nurses United.

About 6,000 nurses have signed up for the conference call Wednesday on hospital preparedness in dealing with Ebola, she said.

"From what we know inside the Dallas hospital, it's what we expect from almost every hospital in the United States: lack of preparedness, inappropriate equipment. It was chaos, rather than systematic patient care under an Ebola plan," she said before the CDC announcement of a new team.

"Every hospital in the country could be Dallas."

Meanwhile, Pham said she was "doing well" in isolation and is being well cared for by the hospital.
"I'm doing well and want to thank everyone for their kind wishes and prayers," Pham said in a statement released at her request by the hospital. "I am blessed by the support of family and friends and am blessed to be cared for by the best team of doctors and nurses in the world here at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas."

The cost of treatment will be covered and will not be a financial burden for Pham or her family, the hospital said later in the day. Pham's friends have set up a website: http://www.gofundme.com/fsqtbo, to help raise money for other expenses, the hospital said.
While officials continue to cope with the Texas cases, the World Health Organization warned Tuesday that new cases of Ebola could skyrocket to 10,000 a week.
At a news conference in Geneva, the WHO's assistant director-general, Bruce Aylward, said that by December, he envisions 5,000 to 10,000 Ebola cases a week in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the West African countries hit hardest by the outbreak.

As of Tuesday, Aylward said, there had been 8,914 Ebola cases and 4,447 deaths as a result of the virus, which was first reported in the region in March.

He cautioned against assuming that the outbreak has slowed down.

"Quite frankly, it's too early to say," Aylward said, adding that numbers can fluctuate because of lags in reporting and high caseloads. "People may draw the wrong conclusion that this is coming under control."

Still, he told reporters that in an encouraging development, certain hard-hit areas such as Liberia's Lofa County and Kenema, Sierra Leone, are seeing a slowing of new cases, which epidemiologists believe is a result of greater awareness and a stepped-up response.
Nevertheless, about 70% of patients in the three affected countries are dying of the Ebola virus, significantly higher than the previously estimated 50% mortality rate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...col/ar-AA6RbsN

Will The CDC Listen?

October 15, 2014


WILL THE CDC LISTEN?
Ebola Can Be Transmitted Via Infectious Aerosol Particles: Health Workers Need Respirators, not Masks
By Lisa M Brosseau, ScD and Rachael Jones, PhD
Global Research, October 15, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ebola-c...-masks/5408022
CIDRAP Editor’s Note: Today’s commentary was submitted to CIDRAP by the authors, who are national experts on respiratory protection and infectious disease transmission. In May they published a similar commentary on MERS-CoV. Dr Brosseau is a Professor and Dr Jones an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Healthcare workers play a very important role in the successful containment of outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola. The correct type and level of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures that healthcare workers remain healthy throughout an outbreak—and with the current rapidly expanding Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it’s imperative to favor more conservative measures.
The precautionary principle—that any action designed to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty—compels the use of respiratory protection for a pathogen like Ebola virus that has:
No proven pre- or post-exposure treatment modalities
A high case-fatality rate
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.1
The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.
We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa—and beyond.
There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed “droplet” and “contact.”
These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) “direct” contact with the body fluids of an infected person.
This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.
The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.4
Although there are some important barriers to the use of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.
If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.
How are infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?
Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other “aerobiologists” employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.
Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed “airborne”) can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large “droplets” on their face, eyes, or nose.
Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.
The chance of large droplets reaching the facial mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol inhalation.
As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.
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.
It’s time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal tract.
We recommend using “aerosol transmissible” rather than the outmoded terms “droplet” or “airborne” to describe pathogens that can transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.
Is Ebola an aerosol-transmissible disease?
We recently published a commentary on the CIDRAP site discussing whether Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, especially in healthcare settings. We drew comparisons with a similar and more well-studied disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
For Ebola and other filoviruses, however, there is much less information and research on disease transmission and survival, especially in healthcare settings.
Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.
What do we know about Ebola transmission?
No one knows for certain how Ebola virus is transmitted from one person to the next. The virus has been found in the saliva, stool, breast milk, semen, and blood of infected persons.8,9 Studies of transmission in Ebola virus outbreaks have identified activities like caring for an infected person, sharing a bed, funeral activities, and contact with blood or other body fluids to be key risk factors for transmission.10-12
On the basis of epidemiologic evidence, it has been presumed that Ebola viruses are transmitted by contaminated hands in contact with the mouth or eyes or broken skin or by splashes or sprays of body fluids into these areas. Ebola viruses appear to be capable of initiating infection in a variety of human cell types,13,14 but the primary portal or portals of entry into susceptible hosts have not been identified.
Some pathogens are limited in the cell type and location they infect. Influenza, for example, is generally restricted to respiratory epithelial cells, which explains why flu is primarily a respiratory infection and is most likely aerosol transmissible. HIV infects T-helper cells in the lymphoid tissues and is primarily a bloodborne pathogen with low probability for transmission via aerosols.
Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site. The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse consequences far beyond the initial infection site.
The potential for transmission via inhalation of aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.20-22
Experimental work has shown that Marburg and Ebola viruses can be isolated from sera and tissue culture medium at room temperature for up to 46 days, but at room temperature no virus was recovered from glass, metal, or plastic surfaces.23 Aerosolized (1-3 mcm) Marburg, Ebola, and Reston viruses, at 50% to 55% relative humidity and 72°F, had biological decay rates of 3.04%, 3.06%. and 1.55% per minute, respectively. These rates indicate that 99% loss in aerosol infectivity would occur in 93, 104, and 162 minutes, respectively.23
In still air, 3-mcm particles can take up to an hour to settle. With air currents, these and smaller particles can be transported considerable distances before they are deposited on a surface.
There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route. Jaax et al24 reported the unexpected death of two rhesus monkeys housed approximately 3 meters from monkeys infected with Ebola virus, concluding that respiratory or eye exposure to aerosols was the only possible explanation.
Zaire Ebola viruses have also been transmitted in the absence of direct contact among pigs25 and from pigs to non-human primates,26 which experienced lung involvement in infection. Persons with no known direct contact with Ebola virus disease patients or their bodily fluids have become infected.12
Direct injection and exposure via a skin break or mucous membranes are the most efficient ways for Ebola to transmit. It may be that inhalation is a less efficient route of transmission for Ebola and other filoviruses, as lung involvement has not been reported in all non-human primate studies of Ebola aerosol infectivity.27 However, the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems are not complete barriers to Ebola virus. Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols.25-27
Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission.28 That is, other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.
Guidance from the CDC and WHO recommends the use of facemasks for healthcare workers providing routine care to patients with Ebola virus disease and respirators when aerosol-generating procedures are performed. (Interestingly, the 1998 WHO and CDC infection-control guidance for viral hemorrhagic fevers in Africa, still available on the CDC Web site, recommends the use of respirators.)
Facemasks, however, do not offer protection against inhalation of small infectious aerosols, because they lack adequate filters and do not fit tightly against the face.1 Therefore, a higher level of protection is necessary.
Which respirator to wear?
As described in our earlier CIDRAP commentary, we can use a Canadian control-banding approach to select the most appropriate respirator for exposures to Ebola in healthcare settings.29 (See this document for a detailed description of the Canadian control banding approach and the data used to select respirators in our examples below.)
The control banding method involves the following steps:
Identify the organism’s risk group (1 to 4). Risk group reflects the toxicity of an organism, including the degree and type of disease and whether treatments are available. Ebola is in risk group 4, the most toxic organisms, because it can cause serious human or animal disease, is easily transmitted, directly or indirectly, and currently has no effective treatments or preventive measures.
Identify the generation rate. The rate of aerosol generation reflects the number of particles created per time (eg, particles per second). Some processes, such as coughing, create more aerosols than others, like normal breathing. Some processes, like intubation and toilet flushing, can rapidly generate very large quantities of aerosols. The control banding approach assigns a qualitative rank ranging from low (1) to high (4) (eg, normal breathing without coughing has a rank of 1).
Identify the level of control. Removing contaminated air and replacing it with clean air, as accomplished with a ventilation system, is effective for lowering the overall concentration of infectious aerosol particles in a space, although it may not be effective at lowering concentration in the immediate vicinity of a source. The number of air changes per hour (ACH) reflects the rate of air removal and replacement. This is a useful variable, because it is relatively easy to measure and, for hospitals, reflects building code requirements for different types of rooms. Again, a qualitative ranking is used to reflect low (1) versus high (4) ACH. Even if the true ventilation rate is not known, the examples can be used to select an appropriate air exchange rate.
Identify the respirator assigned protection factor. Respirators are designated by their “class,” each of which has an assigned protection factor (APF) that reflects the degree of protection. The APF represents the outside, environmental concentration divided by the inside, facepiece concentration. An APF of 10 means that the outside concentration of a particular contaminant will be 10 times greater than that inside the respirator. If the concentration outside the respirator is very high, an assigned protection factor of 10 may not prevent the wearer from inhaling an infective dose of a highly toxic organism.
Practical examples
Two examples follow. These assume that infectious aerosols are generated only during vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, or similar high-energy emissions such as some medical procedures. It is possible that Ebola virus may be shed as an aerosol in other manners not considered.
Caring for a patient in the early stages of disease (no bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, etc). In this case, the generation rate is 1. For any level of control (less than 3 to more than 12 ACH), the control banding wheel indicates a respirator protection level of 1 (APF of 10), which corresponds to an air purifying (negative pressure) half-facepiece respirator such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator. This type of respirator requires fit testing.
Caring for a patient in the later stages of disease (bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, etc).If we assume the highest generation rate (4) and a standard patient room (control level = 2, 3-6 ACH), a respirator with an APF of at least 50 is needed. In the United States, this would be equivalent to either a full-facepiece air-purifying (negative-pressure) respirator or a half-facepiece PAPR (positive pressure), but standards differ in other countries. Fit testing is required for these types of respirators.
The control level (room ventilation) can have a big effect on respirator selection. For the same patient housed in a negative-pressure airborne infection isolation room (6-12 ACH), a respirator with an assigned protection factor of 25 is required. This would correspond in the United States to a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece or with a helmet or hood. This type of respirator does not need fit testing.
Implications for protecting health workers in Africa
Healthcare workers have experienced very high rates of morbidity and mortality in the past and current Ebola virus outbreaks. A facemask, or surgical mask, offers no or very minimal protection from infectious aerosol particles. As our examples illustrate, for a risk group 4 organism like Ebola, the minimum level of protection should be an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.
This type of respirator, however, would only be appropriate only when the likelihood of aerosol exposure is very low. For healthcare workers caring for many patients in an epidemic situation, this type of respirator may not provide an adequate level of protection.
For a risk group 4 organism, any activity that has the potential for aerosolizing liquid body fluids, such as medical or disinfection procedures, should be avoided, if possible. Our risk assessment indicates that a PAPR with a full facepiece (APF = 50) or a hood or helmet (APF = 25) would be a better choice for patient care during epidemic conditions.
We recognize that PAPRs present some logistical and infection-control problems. Batteries require frequent charging (which requires a reliable source of electricity), and the entire ensemble requires careful handling and disinfection between uses. A PAPR is also more expensive to buy and maintain than other types of respirators.
On the other hand, a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece (hood or helmet) does not require fit testing. Wearing this type of respirator minimizes the need for other types of PPE, such as head coverings and goggles. And, most important, it is much more comfortable to wear than a negative-pressure respirator like an N95, especially in hot environments.
A recent report from a Medecins Sans Frontieres healthcare worker in Sierra Leone30 notes that healthcare workers cannot tolerate the required PPE for more than 40 minutes. Exiting the workplace every 40 minutes requires removal and disinfection or disposal (burning) of all PPE. A PAPR would allow much longer work periods, use less PPE, require fewer doffing episodes, generate less infectious waste, and be more protective. In the long run, we suspect this type of protection could also be less expensive.
Adequate protection is essential
To summarize, for the following reasons we believe that Ebola could be an opportunistic aerosol-transmissible disease requiring adequate respiratory protection:
Patients and procedures generate aerosols, and Ebola virus remains viable in aerosols for up to 90 minutes.
All sizes of aerosol particles are easily inhaled both near to and far from the patient.
Crowding, limited air exchange, and close interactions with patients all contribute to the probability that healthcare workers will be exposed to high concentrations of very toxic infectious aerosols.
Ebola targets immune response cells found in all epithelial tissues, including in the respiratory and gastrointestinal system.
Experimental data support aerosols as a mode of disease transmission in non-human primates.
Risk level and working conditions suggest that a PAPR will be more protective, cost-effective, and comfortable than an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.
Acknowledgements
We thank Kathleen Harriman, PhD, MPH, RN, Chief, Vaccine Preventable Diseases Epidemiology Section, Immunization Branch, California Department of Public Health, and Nicole Vars McCullough, PhD, CIH, Manager, Global Technical Services, Personal Safety Division, 3M Company, for their input and review.
References
Oberg L, Brosseau LM. Surgical mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect Control 2008 May;36(4):276-82 [Abstract]
CDC. Ebola hemorrhagic fever: transmission. 2014 Aug 13 [Full text] ECDC. Outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa: third update, 1 August 2014. Stockholm: ECDC 2014 Aug 1 [Full text] Martin-Moreno JM, Llinas G, Hernandez JM. Is respiratory protection appropriate in the Ebola response? Lancet 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):856 [Full text] Papineni RS, Rosenthal FS. The size distribution of droplets in the exhaled breath of healthy human subjects. J Aerosol Med 1997;10(2):105-16 [Abstract] Chao CYH, Wan MP, Morawska L, et al. Characterization of expiration air jets and droplet size distributions immediately at the mouth opening. J Aerosol Sci 2009 Feb;40(2):122-33 [Abstract] Nicas M, Nazaroff WW, Hubbard A. Toward understanding the risk of secondary airborne infection: emission of respirable pathogens. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005 Mar;2(3):143-54 [Abstract] Bauchsch DG, Towner JS, Dowell SF, et al. Assessment of the risk of Ebola virus transmission from bodily fluids and fomites. J Infect Dis 2007;196:S142-7 [Full text] Formenty P, Leroy EM, Epelboin A, et al. Detection of Ebola virus in oral fluid specimens during outbreaks of Ebola virus hemorrhagic fever in the Republic of Congo. Clin Infect Dis 2006 Jun;42(11):1521-6 [Full text] Francesconi P, Yoti Z, Declich S, et al. Ebola hemorrhagic fever transmission and risk factors of contacts, Uganda. Emerg Infect Dis 2003 Nov;9(11):1430-7 [Full text] Dowell SF, Mukunu R, Ksiazek TG, et al. Transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic fever: a study of risk factors in family members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of Congo, 1995. J Infect Dis 1999 Feb;179:S87-91 [Full text] Roels TH, Bloom AS, Buffington J, et al. Ebola hemorrhagic fever, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995: risk factors for patients without a reported exposure. J Infect Dis 1999 Feb;179:S92-7 [Full text] Kuhl A, Hoffmann M, Muller MA, et al. Comparative analysis of Ebola virus glycoprotein interactions with human and bat cells. J Infect Dis 2011 Nov;204:S840-9 [Full text] Hunt CL, Lennemann NJ, Maury W. Filovirus entry: a novelty in the viral fusion world. Viruses 2012 Feb;4(2):258-75 [Full text] Bray M, Geisbert TW. Ebola virus: the role of macrophages and dendritic cells in the pathogenesis of Ebola hemorrhagic fever. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2005 Aug;37(:1560-6 [Full text] Mohamadzadeh M, Chen L, Schmaljohn AL. How Ebola and Marburg viruses battle the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2007 Jul;7(7):556-67 [Abstract] Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, et al. Measurements of airborne influenza virus in aerosol particles from human coughs. PLoS One 2010 Nov 30;5(11):e15100 [Full text] Caul EO. Small round structured viruses: airborne transmission and hospital control. Lancet 1994 May 21;343(890:1240-2 [Full text] Chadwick PR, Walker M, Rees AE. Airborne transmission of a small round structured virus. Lancet 1994 Jan 15;343(8890):171 [Full text] Best EL, Snadoe JA, Wilcox MH. Potential for aerosolization of Clostridium difficile after flushing toilets: the role of toilet lids in reducing environmental contamination. J Hosp Infect 2012 Jan;80(1):1-5 [Full text] Gerba CP, Wallis C, Melnick JL. Microbiological hazards of household toilets: droplet production and the fate of residual organisms. Appl Microbiol 1975 Aug;30(2):229-37 [Full text] Barker J, Jones MV. The potential spread of infection caused by aerosol contamination of surfaces after flushing a domestic toilet. J Appl Microbiol 2005;99(2):339-47 [Full text] Piercy TJ, Smither SJ, Steward JA, et al. The survival of filoviruses in liquids, on solid substrates and in a dynamic aerosol. J Appl Microbiol 2010 Nov;109(5):1531-9 [Full text] Jaax N, Jahrling P, Geisbert T, et al. Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory. Lancet 1995 Dec 23-30;346(8991-2):1669-71 [Abstract] Kobinger GP, Leung A, Neufeld J, et al. Replication, pathogenicity, shedding and transmission of Zaire ebolavirus in pigs. J Infect Dis 2011 Jul 15;204(2):200-8 [Full text] Weingartl HM, Embury-Hyatt C, Nfon C, et al. Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates. Sci Rep 2012;2:811 [Full text] Reed DS, Lackemeyer MG, Garza NL, et al. Aerosol exposure to Zaire Ebolavirus in three nonhuman primate species: differences in disease course and clinical pathology. Microb Infect 2011 Oct;13(11):930-6 [Abstract] Roy CJ, Milton DK. Airborne transmission of communicable infection—the elusive pathway. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr;350(17):1710-2 [Preview] Canadian Standards Association. Selection, use and care of respirators. CAN/CSA Z94.4-11
Wolz A. Face to face with Ebola—an emergency care center in Sierra Leone. (Perspective) N Engl J Med 2014 Aug 27 [Full text]
Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/15/26692/