Ebola and CDC obfuscation
(2014 Oct blog post)
Blog menu >
This page on Ebola and CDC
! Note !
More text or web links or images may be added
--- if/when I re-visit this page.
In October 2014, things were getting bad here in the U.S. Ebola-wise.
When he went to a Dallas hospital with a severe headache, a nurse sent him home with some antibiotics --- even after finding out that he had just come from Liberia, where the Ebola epidemic had killed several thousand people, with no end in sight.
Apparently this nurse either does not keep up with 'serious' world news or she was very poorly trained. Probably both.
By the middle of October 2014, there was an Ebola patient in Dallas (a nurse who was helping Mr. Duncan in the Dallas hospital), a man in a Nebraska hospital (brought back from Liberia), and a possible infected person in Boston.
Furthermore, the news outlets informed us of a nurse in Madrid who had been infected by the Ebola virus --- and we were informed that health authorities there had her dog killed.
These instances let it be known that there were several cases of the Ebola virus being transported out of Africa.
The CDC (Centers for Disease Control)
In the early weeks of October 2014, spokespersons for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) in the U.S. are saying lots of things that don't make much sense.
People here in the U.S. are rightfully concerned about the quality of the information that they are getting from the CDC.
The CDC's chief spokesman, a Dr. Frieden, seems to be causing more concern by stating obvious things (like "this is a very dangerous disease") and making statements that just do not stand the test of common sense --- and making no statements at all on the 'details' of the 'protocols' that he keeps referring to.
For example: Neither Dr. Frieden nor other medical people and news outlets have indicated how to dispose of the urine and feces of the patients here.
The CDC web site says that, on airplanes, these things (like human urine, feces, and vomit) should be put in containers, but they do not say (anywhere that I can find) how to safely dispose of the containers. Reference: this CDC Ebola web page.
In fact, an article titled "Ebola Patients Wastes Go into Public Sewage" at guardianlv.com (Guardian Liberty Voice) in 2014 points out that, for the Ebola patients (two U.S. doctors) that were sent to Emory University in Georgia from Liberia, "Ebola patients' wastes go into public sewage".
This article points out CDC infection control procedures say:
"Liquid medical waste such as feces and vomitus can be disposed of in the sanitary sewer."
The article goes on to point out that:
Atlanta's sewer system covers about a 19 square mile area, comprising about 15 percent of Atlanta's total area. Their website acknowledges "but this system is aging as well, and sanitary sewer overflows occur frequently."
The article ends by saying:
Authorities assure that "we do not think there will be any secondary cases" as a result of having the Ebola patients staying at Emory.
Since the news broke of the Ebola patients' wastes flowing directly into the public sewage system, many people are not this confident.
Even professional medical-waste handing companies are concerned about how to handle the wastes as this article at inquisitr.com titled Texas Ebola: New Concerns Arise Over Disposal of Bodily Fluids reveals.
"When Emory University Hospital in Atlanta was preparing to care for two U.S. missionaries infected with Ebola in West Africa in its high-security bio-containment unit, their waste hauler, Stericycle , initially refused to handle it. Bags of Ebola waste quickly began piling up until the hospital worked out the issues with the help of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
I'd like to know how they worked out those issues, and I think the general citizenry should be told how those issues were 'worked out'.
It appears that the CDC feels that once the feces and urine go down a toilet, it is not their problem any more.
Specific Possibilities for Ebola spreading in the U.S. :
Many articles point out the virus can be dangerous for many days, especially when in a cool, wet, and dark environment --- like a sewer.
I have not seen any info on whether Ebola can be hosted in fish, shrimp, oysters, etc. --- but I have seen some info on their uptake in bacteria.
Since Ebola is known to be found in bats and monkeys in Africa, I think it is safe to assume that it could be found in bats, rats, raccoons, etc. here in the U.S. --- and eventually in deer, dogs, cats, possums, etc. here.
Some articles, like this one titled "How Long Does the Ebola Virus Survive in Semen?" at motherjones.com point out that the virus can be infective in semen, for more than 70, even 90-plus, days.
If the wives of those doctors that were treated at Emory University see this, they may be leery about having sex with their husbands for many, many months --- and may be leery about kissing (exchanging saliva) or even touching.
For further information :
In case I do not return to update this page, here are a few WEB SEARCHES that you can use to provide updates.
We need a better CDC (Centers for Disease Control) --- a CDC that is more interested in informing people of the details of how to avoid Ebola infections than in wasting citizens' time with repetitive, useless 'virus-side chats' using the word 'protocols' without giving any of the details of those protocols.
In the weeks after the Ebola death in Dallas, in early October, it has become clearer and clearer, as some U.S. news teams took time to read the CDC protocols, that the CDC-vaunted protocols are vague and useless and dangerous, if they continue to be offered without further clarification and without outright changes and improvement.
We deserve better for our taxes.
Apparently, a bunch of bureaucrats (many with M.D. degrees) have been collecting paychecks for years while generating more obfuscation than light.
This Ebola thing (along with the ISIS situation in the Mid East) seems to indicate the world is going into a tailspin into hell.
Best of luck to all the good people on Earth.
May you survive the Ebola plague of 2014 (and the after-plagues).
Hopefully it does not come to this.
Bottom of this page on blog topic
To return to a previously visited web page location, click on
the Back button of your web browser, a sufficient number of times.
OR, use the History-list option of your web browser.
Or you can scroll up, to the top of this page.
Page was posted 2014 Oct 13.
See some Ebola images below.
U.S. doctor (and microbiologist) Dr. Gil Mobley
protests CDC incompetence, nay, CDC lying,
on returning to the U.S. from Guatemala via
the Atlanta international airport.
Video is available at YouTube.
I have seen a couple of women doctors use
some common sense and admit that there IS
some chance of catching ebola via the air,
for example, if someone sneezes right by you
and you inhale some moisture carrying the virus.
This brings to mind what some medical staffers
told the family of Mr. Duncan, who died in Dallas
of Ebola. They said a "blood transfusion from Ebola
patients that have recovered has not been proven to work".
Note that this also implies it has not been proven
that it does not work. So in this dire situation,
it was worth a try. And, indeed, they are trying a
transfusion in the nurse who attended Mr. Duncan and
was infected with the virus. I think the family of
Mr. Duncan has a legal case --- especially if
several people treated with transfusions recover.
These are the kinds of reassuring statements
we are getting from Dr. Frieden of the CDC.
A stream of the obvious
("this is a very serious disease")
and many sentences containing the word
'protocol' emanate from Dr. Frieden's mouth.
Unfortunately, when news organizations
take a look at the written and illustrated
CDC protocols, the documentation is found
to be vague and likely to lead to serious infections.
Obama was gullible enough to accept
the 'protocols' of the CDC head-bureaucrats.
By the way --- Obama, how are those
drone strikes working out for you?
Kill 2 jihadists and provide them with
a thousand new recruits. The math
does not seem to be working out very well.
I remember back around 2007/2008 reading
that Obama was much impressed by some
unspecified game-changing military
When the drone strikes under Obama far
exceeded those under Bush, it became
obvious that the unspecified hardware was drones.
I think the honeymoon with Obama is over.
That was misplaced infatuation.
Perhaps capturing MiddleEast 'hearts-and-minds'
instead of more drone strikes would yield
a better result. Obama, you sacrificed the
moral high ground with all your drone strikes.
By the way, imagine the immediate U.S. outrage
if there were just ONE drone strike on U.S. soil
by some foreign entity. Imagine what the U.S.
would be saying if a wedding party was wiped out,
as happened in Yemen.
(I read recently that the U.S. quietly offered
a million dollars to surviving family members
in Yemen, as some sort of compensation.
I guess that is quite a bit better than ISIS.
I doubt if ISIS is going to compensate the
families of their beheading victims and
We may not have the moral high ground any more,
but we have some low ground --- very low ground