Spent time in Africa and came home sick? No S^#@, Sherlock. Plus it's a large leap from 'flu-like symptoms' and a 'fever' to Ebola.
Could it be that the 'fever' was an immune system response and all will be well? Could it be, mayhaps, that this person will fight off the effects of time in squalid Africa?
Besides, the test is lousy.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/ebola-the-us-diagnostic-test-is-utterly-ureliable/
" Ebola: The US diagnostic test is utterly unreliable
by Jon Rappoport
August 5, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
When researchers and doctors are talking about a germ-caused disease, everything depends on the accuracy of the diagnosis. That’s where it all starts.
So here is a blockbuster.
The US diagnostic test for Ebola is
utterly unreliable.
Using the test to claim a patient has Ebola or doesn’t have Ebola is
scientific fraud.
Therefore, any pronouncements made by the Centers for Disease Control, where all the US testing is done, are
worthless.
ABC New York reports (in “Mount Sinai patient likely does not have Ebola, health official says”):
“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus [sic]. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.”
Update: The ABC New York report has since been updated to now say:
“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson, testing for Ebola takes one to two days after they receive the samples.”
The CDC is testing all suspected Ebola patients in the US with the PCR method.
The PCR is
completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample may or may not be part of a virus. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.
But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit so it can be observed.
But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.
The PCR never establishes that.
Finding a t
iny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.
If Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol, the two Americans who are now back in the US, were merely tested with the PCR to establish a diagnosis of Ebola, no one has
any idea whether they have Ebola.
People wrongly assume that, because patients spew blood and collapse, a tiny amount of Ebola virus inside those patients will kill them. Not so.
Another wrong assumption is: the human immune system is helpless in the face of such a vicious germ. Also untrue.
As I mentioned in a previous article, don’t be misled by pronouncements that “previously healthy people,” exposed to a virus, suddenly collapsed and died.
You have no idea whether those people (health workers, for example) were previously healthy. A very detailed investigation by competent and unbiased people is necessary to establish the truth.
Further, automatically assuming the “previously healthy” people were serious infected with a particular virus—without effectively testing them—is absurd.
One of the cornerstones of (fraudulent) AIDS mythology is that a group of previously healthy men, being treated at the UCLA hospital, had their immune systems wiped out by HIV and only HIV.
This was an enormous lie. I studied the published medical summaries on those men, and it was obvious, from the number and types of medical drugs they’d taken in the past, that they were anything but “previously healthy.” In other words, a number of factors contributed to their immune-system collapse.
There is a familiar medical term: “titer.” It is the measure of concentration or, roughly speaking, quantity of a particular germ in a patient’s body. There is a method of testing.
It’s a crucial test.
That’s how technicians can determine the likelihood that a patient’s immune system is not warding off a germ; the titer is very high.
Simply saying a tiny trace amount of a germ in a patient’s body is proof of disease is false.
During the
fake Swine Flu “pandemic,” I corresponded with a highly respected British researcher. I asked him whether any reputed Swine Flu patients were being tested for titer.
Shockingly, he said he had no idea. It didn’t bother him that he had no idea. His attitude was neutral, as if I’d been asking whether patients were being fed oatmeal or corn flakes.
I see no evidence that any patient who has been diagnosed with Ebola has been given a rigorous and all-important titer test.
The “hot zone” areas of Ebola, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, have been decimated for a long time: war, extreme poverty, malnutrition, starvation, contaminated water supplies, exposure to toxic industrial chemicals, vast toxic overuse of antibiotics, pesticides (some of them banned in other countries), expired and unrefrigerated medicines, vaccines (which, when given to people whose immune systems are already hanging on by a thread, can be lethal).
But we only hear about Ebola. Who knows what the people (including health workers) in those areas have been exposed to? A toxic chemical, for example, could cause explosive bleeding.
Combine this information blackout with the fact that the p
rominent diagnostic test for Ebola is deceptive and worthless, and you have a horribly perfect storm.
And I would add, an opportunity to foist and promote yet another pandemic fear to the world.
As for mainstream reporting, I can tell you this. In the past, during “epidemics,” I approached several journalists with the basic information in this article. To a person, they backed off. They didn’t want to touch it.
These were people who’d responded favorably to other stories I’d given them. But this? Too hot. Too corrosive. Too dangerous to their reputations. Too destructive to the medical disease paradigm. Too revealing of medical crimes. "
So, hysteria aside, I'll go with squalid conditions, dirty water, no-sanitation and unhealthy everything in nearly all Africa as the major (if not only) cause of these sicknesses. And yes, some resulted in the unfortunate deaths of these people. But an Ebola breakout? That can't be accurately tested for? Really?
But rest assured - it poses no risk to the US...
