General Discussion

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts) Fri Oct 10, 2014, 07:22 PM Oct 2014

Ebola will NOT evolve into another form of transmission....not in a 100 years.

"Medical experts further agree that it's highly unlikely Ebola could mutate into a form that alters its mode of transmission. That type of mutation would be unprecedented according to Columbia University virologist Vincent Racaniello, who wrote: "We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we've never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted," and that "There is no reason to believe that Ebola virus is any different from any of the viruses that infect humans and have not changed the way that they are spread."

.................

Who else to pose as an expert to spread fear and loathing against the consensus of actual medical experts than a fiction writer?

How is it that intelligent folk, of which there are so many on DU, abandon all former embraces of science to camp out with the cavemen as soon as the media starts purposely and needlessly terrorizing its audience?

Novelist versus virologist, I know what camp I am in.
.................

CNN Turns to "Outbreak" Fiction Writer For Ebola Coverage

CNN Tonight turned to ophthalmologist and fiction writer Dr. Robin Cook to hype unsubstantiated fears about the transmission of the Ebola Virus and the CDC's grasp on the situation.

Presenting Cook as "The Man Who Wrote The Book On Ebola," host Don Lemon called Cook's 1987 fiction thriller Outbreak, which details an Ebola outbreak in the U.S.," prophetic." Lemon allowed Cook to speculate that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot adequately protect Americans from Ebola, and that despite the CDC's assertions to the contrary, the virus may live in the air or mutate into a form that can spread as an aerosol.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/10/cnn-turns-to-outbreak-fiction-writer-for-ebola/201113

............................

The major media should be charged as fear mongering, misinforming criminals.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ebola will NOT evolve into another form of transmission....not in a 100 years. (Original Post) Fred Sanders Oct 2014 OP

I just discovered Dr. Racaniello's websites and podcasts a couple of days ago and kestrel91316 Oct 2014 #1

It's pretty bad as it is. LisaL Oct 2014 #2

Ebola is NOT more easily transmitted than HIV. See post and link above also. Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #3

Only because HIV patients live a lot longer. LisaL Oct 2014 #5

You need a better grounding in science. Again, I am with the scientists, not anyone's speculative Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #6

And you need basic understanding of math. LisaL Oct 2014 #7

Ever since that stupid movie... randome Oct 2014 #4

You are aware that Robin Cook is also an MD Ms. Toad Oct 2014 #8

He is not a virologist, he is not an epidemiologist, he is now primarily a novelist. There is a Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #9

I was not claiming he was a virologist - Ms. Toad Oct 2014 #10

kestrel91316

(51,666 posts)

1. I just discovered Dr. Racaniello's websites and podcasts a couple of days ago and

Reply to Fred Sanders (Original post)

Fri Oct 10, 2014, 07:57 PM

Oct 2014

since listening to what he has said recently about Ebola I am actually much less afraid now.

He's the real expert in this picture.

http://www.twiv.tv/

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

2. It's pretty bad as it is.

Reply to Fred Sanders (Original post)

Fri Oct 10, 2014, 07:59 PM

Oct 2014

More easily transmitted than HIV.
Deadlier than HIV.
I am not sure why I should only worry about airborne viruses.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

3. Ebola is NOT more easily transmitted than HIV. See post and link above also.

Reply to LisaL (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 10, 2014, 08:04 PM

Oct 2014

Ebola has a transmission factor of R2 versus HIV of R4 and measles of R16.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola

Folks need to know what they are talking about before talking about it.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

5. Only because HIV patients live a lot longer.

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 10, 2014, 11:53 PM

Oct 2014

So they have more opportunities to infect others because they can live for years with HIV.
With Ebola, patients die within days.
If you divide this R0 by the unit of time it takes to infect the victims, the number for Ebola will be a lot higher than for HIV.
So maybe you should figure out what you are talking about first.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

6. You need a better grounding in science. Again, I am with the scientists, not anyone's speculative

Reply to LisaL (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 11, 2014, 10:10 AM

Oct 2014

analysis.

You want to live in fear, go ahead, keep the rest of us out of your nightmare.

"Divide the R0....."? It is OK to admit your error, if you learn by it.

Look at the chart again....

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

7. And you need basic understanding of math.

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 11, 2014, 10:15 AM

Oct 2014

Ro tells you how many people on average somebody infects during the duration of the disease. HIV infected persons have years to infect. Ebola infected persons have days.
It's pretty basic math, really.
Read the last sentence in the link you posted, if you can't figure it out.

"**The R0 is integrated over the time that a person is infectious to others. For HIV, this could be years. But for Ebola, that time is only about a week. So even though they have similar R0s, Ebola's infections per unit of time is much higher than HIV's."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola

randome

(34,845 posts)

4. Ever since that stupid movie...

Reply to Fred Sanders (Original post)

Fri Oct 10, 2014, 08:12 PM

Oct 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

Ms. Toad

(34,074 posts)

8. You are aware that Robin Cook is also an MD

Reply to Fred Sanders (Original post)

Sat Oct 11, 2014, 11:08 AM

Oct 2014

who has completed residencies in both surgery and ophthalmology, and who medically astute enough to have taught at Harvard Medical school, right?

That's a bit more than a "novelist."

If you want to dispute the content of what he has said, have at it - but implying that someone of his caliber is a caveman is a pretty blatant distortion of his qualifications.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

9. He is not a virologist, he is not an epidemiologist, he is now primarily a novelist. There is a

Reply to Ms. Toad (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 11, 2014, 11:18 AM

Oct 2014

reason why science and medicine have specialities, this area is more complex than the pay grade of an ophthalmologist.

Would you want a virologist to to do your eye surgery? Would you want your family physician to do the cuts? So, yes, he is a caveman on the subject.

Ms. Toad

(34,074 posts)

10. I was not claiming he was a virologist -

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 11, 2014, 11:38 AM

Oct 2014

But he is considerably more than a "novelist," as you dismissively claimed.

And - yes, as a matter of fact, there are specialists who I would trust outside of their area of specialty more than I would trust some within that specialty. As a specific example, I would trust my vascular surgeon to treat my daughter's liver disease more than the pediatric gastroenterologist who treated it for the first few years after her diagnosis. From my conversations with both of them about her care, he is far more knowledgeable than the specialist.

As to Robin Cook, specifically, I doubt you know his abilities well enough to judge that he is a caveman on the subject. But he certainly has far more medical knowledge than your dismissive characterization of him implied.

Reply to this discussion