I am grateful for this. The killing of the dog on Spain put me into an all-out Ebola panic I didn't have previous to that event.

Was sad to hear about the dog in the Spanish case.

so quarantine such as a rabies quarantine, test for the virus, if positive wait, re-test until negative and virus is cleared.

However, after promising to reunite him with his owner, if the authorities alter their position, likely due to CDC pressure, the public backlash will be far worse than if they never said anything at all.

It was also my understanding from stories about the dog in Spain, and my expertise is definitely not medicine, that the virus only appears on tests when symptomatic, and that the limited studies indicated that the dogs could spread the disease without every showing any symptoms. If true, wouldn't that render the quarantine measures ineffective?

Ebola virus during the process of infection. It has not been studied. It is a huge unknown.

This could blow up in their faces. Or it could turn out to be a big nothing.

IMHO they are not considering all the possibilities.

But it left the question as to whether dogs can infect other species unanswered. It seems to suggest that although dogs can be infected, they do not transmit the disease to humans or possibly to other species.

Most likely it's not infected. They could test the dog to be sure. If these people safely tested hundreds of dogs, surely one dog can be safely tested.

And still were asymptomatic.

If I remember correctly, researchers over the years have tried to trace the route of infection and the vector that harbors the Ebola virus in between outbreaks. Dogs were an obvious source since they are ubiquitous - and if they were able to infect humans, that would have been determined long ago. And dogs would have been exterminated in the areas where Ebola has appeared.

The most likely vector is bush meat, some animal that is hunted and brought into the towns and villages for human consumption. Mostly recently fruit bats have been suggested but I don't think anything has been confirmed.

animals that tolerate it can have high enough circulating levels to measure. It doesn't have a pathway into their immune system or other critical systems that would make them sick.

The reason it makes humans sick is because it has surface proteins that allow entry into the immune system for replication, and once it is wrapped in the membrane of those cells, it has surface proteins that allow infection of the lining of the blood vessels.

The pig-monkey study showed that it was able to enter through the membranes of cells lining the respiratory system; something that it doesn't do in humans.

It's those kinds of details that ensure that dogs don't catch, say, mumps or measles from humans. And humans don't catch parvovirus from dogs. Parvovirus might gain entry to us while caring for sick puppies, but our immune system knocks it out.

with his/her life.

The jury is still out on the role dogs might be able to play in the transmission of Ebola. And unlike rabies, we vets don't have pre-exposure vaccinations and post-esposure prophylaxis to make the risk of infection virtually zero.

This makes me very nervous.

If it takes 21 days to appear, that's a lot of exposure time.

GAME OVER!

Transmissibility and possible period of transmission is completely unknown.

ETA: If they don't get sick, there technically is no "incubation period". But that does not mean they could not at some point shed virus.

If that dog gets infected, things may change.

no one knows a damned thing other than that they can seroconvert, and that no seroconverted dogs were ever known to be ill with anything resembling Ebola.

That is literally the sum total of our knowledge about this.

little to nothing is known. .

We have no factual basis by which we can refute that possibility.

We. Just. Don't. Know.

All we know is that they can seroconvert, and they do not show any symptoms of Ebola when they are exposed and developing an immune response.

If you think that means they ARE safe to be around if exposed, you don't know squat about virology, immunology, or epidemiology.

Please refrain from making patently false statements about this. We need a LOT more information before we can say dogs exposed to Ebola don't play some role, no matter how small, in its transmission.

such bs.

look for virus. So that is not a valid conclusion.

One might try to INFER it, but ones has no PROOF of it.

I never got into the whole thing of how scientific studies are conducted and what makes a good study vs a bad one, and what conclusions you can or can't arrive at based on the limitations of the study. But even I can figure out that that single limited retrospective antibody survey does not provide proof that dogs cannot play a role in Ebola transmission.

As I understand it, dogs do carry the virus, but remain asymptomatic. I can't imagine that a kennel is prepared for this sort of thing. This seems unreasonably risky.

In previous cases, dogs got infected by eating contaminated meat.
This dog didn't eat contaminated meat.

The truth is, they really don't know for sure. If dogs can spread the virus, even if it's a rare occurrence, more people could die.

Presumably they get it the same way humans do: by contact with infected body fluids or meat.

That dog will need to be isolated for at least 21 days before we know whether it got infected. That is an awful long time to risk exposing a kennel worker to that dog's saliva, urine and feces. And by exposing that kennel worker you are also exposing that kennel worker's family and community. Doesn't seem worth the risk, even if the likelihood of the dog bring infected is small.

"Presumably" is a pretty scary word when it comes to lethal diseases. As others with relevant knowledge and training have stated, there is some basis to indicate dogs may carry and transmit the disease, even while remaining asymptomatic, but we have very incomplete and limited data.

This is certainly not my areas of expertise. I very much hope the Texas authorities are making the right decisions with the dog, and making such definitive statements this early is asking for trouble and tempting fate.

If kennel workers or others get and spread the disease because we tried to save one dog (and I'm a dog lover), heads should roll and careers should come to a quick and ignoble end. If the decision is made to euthanize the dog, anger will unnecessarily flare because of the false hope provided by the initial press.

Out of curiosity, I wonder who's paying for the extraordinary precautions, handling and veterinary care and testing this dog now requires, and how much it will cost if not privately paid, particularly in the context of so many uninsured and needy people in Texas.

And I agree, this appears to be a very expensive undertaking---and that's if nothing goes wrong.

And if anything goes wrong, it can only be viewed as incompetence bordering on the criminal.

My fingers are crossed, I wish the very best to both patient and dog, and pray we are not left with any terminal regrets.

centers here - the Vet school at A&M comes to mind.

Hopefully they've taken the dog there rather than some random kennel.

We know with puppies how hard it is for them to be in kennels due to risk of exposure to diseases like distemper. Hopefully someone with skill is not only taking care of the dog but monitoring.

ETA: Link to TAMU http://vetmed.tamu.edu/

TAMU. Or somewhere to monitor the poor thing. I guess I should be happy it's still alive in this state.

Considering safety issues potentially involved.

What indicates that dogs carry and transmit the virus? Yes, they have antibodies which just means exposure.

They eat it, the virus circulates, their immune system knocks it out, their system clears it.

They're not infected because it doesn't gain entry to their cells, hijack their cellular metabolism and start reproducing.

If the definition of infection is having the virus in your body, then certainly the dogs were infected. That is how they got the antibodies. Your body develops antibodies in reaction to a virus being in your body. The thing is, dogs appear to be asymptomatic. What is not clear is whether asymptomatic dogs who have the virus in their bodies can transmit the virus. Until we know for certain they can't, it seems reckless to expose people to those dogs' saliva, urine and feces.

What the definition of an antibody is.

Antibodies are produced after an immune cell is presented with an antigen or protein from an infectious agent, foreign substance, and sometimes even from self.

The presence of antibodies post exposure to Ebola virus does not necessarily mean infection. It means the host immune cell has seen antigen from the virus.

Infection implies invasion into host cell and replication.

In the case of IgG antibodies present in dogs, it can mean that there was a true infection or that there was simply immune stimulation.

It is important to know which because it can mean the difference between saving thousands of human lives or needlessly putting down companion animals.

A would hopefully doubt that the public health authorities of a first world nation did not panic and act foolishly, but with at least of modicum of scientific risk.

Do you believe there is a perceptible risk with the dog, even if it very small?

Dogs being able infect and shed the virus changes everything. That means we vets will have to humanely euthanize potentially thousands of animals. That decision has to be based on science. Not what ifs. I've done my own studies with viruses where I give a infectious dose and there is no infection. Unless the studies are done we simply do not know.

My money will always be on the virus in the short term. In the long term, immune systems generally catch up. At least on the population level.

This is actually a good natural infection setting to study the dog and virus. I feel like Spain putting down that dog was way premature.

In reading what study shows we know they become infected. Maybe I've been out of the loop. But it is the third time I've read this in the thread. I know about antibodies. What evidence is there for infection?

It is a seroprevalence study. Nothing more. We have no peer reviewed literature that dogs become infected and or shed virus. So, I can't really say either way. That same study tried to RTPCR virus and viral antigens and got nada.

and variations in these factors influence the expression of illness.

The scenario for a dog to get exposed/infected in a rural village in Africa, may not turn out to be the same scenario for a dog in suburban Dallas TX. The same can be said for a scenario that would cycle the virus from a dog and back into a human.

Ebola has been detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on the skin of 26 ebola patients in an isolation ward. Dogs often lick skin of people they live with. It takes from 1-10 virions to create an infection. Speculation can put all those "facts" together into a putative path of transmission that would be concerning, if true.

But, transmission to dogs by licking, or from dogs to people by licking, or in dog feces isn't known.

Well, honestly, that has to be said with the caveat, "to the best of our knowledge". Our knowledge about ebola is going to change, we don't know if that bit of knowledge is going to change or not.

We are climbing the learning curve about how hosts, agent and environment influence presentation of ebola in the US by trial and error. Monitoring this pet could actually provide a bit of insight (although a small sample size of 1 is quite limited for generalization). Hopefully this works out ok for the animal care workers.

So far, with only one incident to consider, the pattern learned in Africa is what we see...the risk of transmission to the general pubic who have no physical contact is small and the risk to intimate caregivers is great.

Not infection. It's not surprising dogs during outbreaks are exposed to the virus. There is no evidence that they become infected and shed virus.

Period. So nobody has any business showing a cavalier attitude toward handling this dog.

And until we know whether or how ebola virus is shed by dogs, risking human life to scoop poop is reckless, IMHO.

then I fail to see why we can't quarantine dog exposed to Ebola.
The dog can be tested to see if he was even infected to begin with.
I think it's highly unlikely that he was.

Killing Excaliber was so cruel, stupid and unnecessary.

We have ZERO information about dogs' possible role in Ebola transmission. ZERO.

All we know so far is that they can seroconvert when exposed. We MUST NOT infer anything else from that very limited information. So we MUST exercise extreme caution.

When wild dogs eat a corpse, the Ebola virus is circulating their system but it does not gain access to any of their cells. Their immune system attacks it, develops antibodies to it, and the virus is cleared from their system.

In humans, when Ebola gets into your system it is able to enter your monocytes and macrophages -- the cells that normally would be ingesting the virus instead play host to it. It hijacks their metabolism, replicates inside the monocytes and macrophages,and then the virions bud out wrapped in their cellular membrane, which gives them access to the endothelial cells that line the blood vessels and access to lymph cells which normally would be producing antibodies. A significant percentage of the lymph cells are attacked and commit suicide (70% sticks in my mind), which reduces the immune response.

World of difference there.

but we do not. No one has determined whether or not dogs shed Ebola, and via what route, at any point in this process. No one has determined how long the process takes, and when it might be safe to be around them again if they do shed.

It's a huge unknown, and because it only takes one virion to kill, we must be very cautious until we have much more data about Ebola in dogs.

This woman was in early stage of Ebola. Her dog did not eat any contaminated meat. I find it highly unlikely the dog is infected.

"Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins' office confirmed earlier today that the nurse's dog remains in the apartment. Water and food have been delivered for the dog, a King Charles spaniel, and authorities are developing a longer-term plan for how to deal with the dog while it's owner is being treated."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dallas-nurse-ebola-identified/story?id=26160328

".....Symptoms did not develop in any of these highly exposed animals during the outbreak, a finding that tends to support antigenic stimulation, asymptomatic, or very mild Ebola virus infection. Wild animals, especially gorillas and chimpanzees, can also be infected by Ebola virus, but the infection is highly lethal and causes huge outbreaks and massive population declines (5,14). Other animals such as guinea pigs (15), goats (16), and horses (17) remain asymptomatic or develop mild symptoms after experimental infection, but Ebola virus infection has never been observed in these species in the wild. Thus, dogs appear to be the first animal species shown to be naturally and asymptomatically infected by Ebola virus. Asymptomatic Ebola infection in humans has also been observed during outbreaks (18) but is very rare. Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a short period before virus clearance, as observed experimentally in other animals. Given the frequency of contact between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infection must be considered as a potential risk factor for human infection and virus spread. Human infection could occur through licking, biting, or grooming. Asymptomatically infected dogs could be a potential source of human Ebola outbreaks and of virus spread during human outbreaks, which could explain some epidemiologically unrelated human cases. Dogs might also be a source of human Ebola outbreaks, such as the 1976 Yambuku outbreaks in Democratic Republic of Congo (19), the 1995 Kikwit outbreak, some outbreaks that occurred in 1996 and 2004 in Gabon and Republic of Congo (5), and the 1976 (6), 1979 (20), and 2004 (21) outbreaks in Sudan, the sources of which are still unknown. Together, these findings strongly suggest that dogs should be taken into consideration during the management of human Ebola outbreaks. To confirm the potential human risk of Ebola virus–infected dogs, the mechanisms of viral excretion (i.e. body fluids and virus kinetics of excretion) should be investigated during experimental canine infection. This research would also offer insights into the natural resistance of dogs....."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298261/

Yet we are told that if patients doesn't exhibit symptoms, the patient is not infectious.
Doesn't appear to be entirely accurate, does it?
But for whatever reason we are not killing off all the individuals exposed to Ebola.
Go figure.

Or they may not excrete... It is from the discussion where things get to be postulated for other studies. We do not know. Bottom line. Studies need to be done.

Since we don't know, the real question is do we err on the side of preserving the dog's life or err on the side of preventing further spread of the virus? I have no expertise to assess the risk, but I think this country is in a critical spot right now. We have a patient zero and then this nurse and now the dog. In general, I favor aggressive containment at this point before it spreads just like a wildfire spreads from a single campfire not properly put out. I don't say putting the dog down is the right decision but I hope compassion for the nurse and the dog don't prevent the right call from being made. There might be a lot of regret about it later when actual children are dying.

can't contract it, because they have a higher body temperature than dogs and humans.

Have you read anything similar? I'm trying to find the link to that study.

Someone might have just been idly speculating, musing, whatever.

Here's the sum total of what we know. It ain't much.

https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Pages/Ebola-virus-FAQ.aspx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298261/

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas-pets.html

if they were a vector, there'd be an indication of it in the contagion patterns. And there isn't.

Whether or not it has the virus, it will provide valuable scientific information about catching the virus from humans. It's only one case, but it's an important case study that needs to be documented.

As a dog-lover, I'm rooting for it. If it were near me, I'd be glad to volunteer in care-giving. I'll bet there are a lot of people willing to do it.

Dog has been removed from the apartment and is being cared for in a humane way.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3588869.shtml?cat=10036

So there.