The Ebola Virus and You
By Norman E. Hooben
The Ebola virus has been in the news a lot in recent weeks and months. But when did you first hear of Ebola? Last year? Or was it the year before that? Well we can dispense with the ‘when’ questions as long as you know the ‘now’ answers.
My first recollection of the virus goes back
to my years in the military where my job description involved having to know
about the various aspects of zoonotic diseases (diseases transmitted from
animal to man; i.e. rabies, plague, etc.).
A regular recipient of the CDC’s (Center for Disease Control) report on
various disease outbreaks, I recall mention of the Ebola virus and that it was
confined to certain areas of Africa meant little to me at that time…had to be
in the late 70’s or early 80’s because the disease was first identified in
1976. But then a lot of years went by
and my interests in politics surpassed that of zoonoses…little did I know that
the two will one day meet.
When we talk about politics we cannot escape
the word, “control”, for control is the very essence of politics. If it were not for politics and politicians would
we not be free or less restricted by their impositions? Of course we would! And when we talk about control, it is always
about control over the populace…that’s the common folk, you and me! (Yes, it’s
true, some would like to give more freedom’s to animals: Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein
wants to give rights to animals and has argued that “Animals should be
permitted to bring suit.”)
So who are these control freaks? Oh I could name many but let’s confine ourselves
to some familiar names like Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski
and Eric R. Pianka. Eric R. Pianka? Who is he?
Aha! We’ll get back to him in a
minute but first the others.
We all knew (if you didn’t, you do now!) that
Henry Kissinger was the architect of Project 2000, a population
control scheme approved by President Jimmy Carter. Then there’s that scoundrel of all
scoundrels, Zbigniew Brzezinski (paid adviser to Barack Obama) who clearly
stated in a speech (yours truly first
spread it around the Internet in 2009) “…it is easier to
kill a million people than control a million people…” “…and with the use of force” he added. If we interpret the latter correctly you can
see why Obama is militarizing your local police force and de-militarizing our
armed forces but that’s another angle.
The angle we should be concerning ourselves with
concerns the “Who is he?” guy mentioned above.
Dr
Eric R. Pianka is an award winning scientist who would like to exterminate 90%
of the world’s population. And how does
he propose this mass murdering escapade?
Why of course, Ebola! That’s the
essence of this post! Ebola and
politics, little did I know that the two would meet.
The following from News Weekly
Scientist calls for
death to humanity
by John BallantyneNews Weekly, April 15, 2006
A Texas scientist advocates killing
nine-tenths of the world's population by an airborne Ebola virus, writes John
Ballantyne.
An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth's population by an airborne Ebola virus.
The University of Texas evolutionary ecologist, Dr Eric R. Pianka, was addressing the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, in early March, after the academy had named him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Present at Pianka's speech was Forrest M. Mim III, a popular science writer and editor of the bi-weekly journal, The Citizen Scientist. He reported:
"Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
"This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind ... I grabbed a notepad ..." ("Meeting Doctor Doom", The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006).
Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, "We're no better than bacteria!"
He argued that the sharp increase in the human population since the onset of industrialisation was destroying the planet. He warned that Earth would not survive unless its human population was reduced to a tenth of its present number.
He then offered drastic solutions, accompanying his remarks with a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
War and famine were insufficient for solving global overpopulation, he explained. Instead, disease was far more efficient and swift. At this point, Pianka displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls.
AIDS took too long to kill people off, he explained. His preferred method of exterminating over five billion human beings was via airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and kills its victims in days rather than years.
However, as Mim observed: "Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
"After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, 'We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.' "
After he finished his address, the audience burst into applause.
Mim reported: "It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause. ...
During a question-and-answer session, Pianka praised communist China's draconian one-child policy, and suggested that IQs are falling because only "uncaring people" (i.e., people with below-average intelligence) have large families.
Mim recalls how, once the questioning was over:
An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth's population by an airborne Ebola virus.
The University of Texas evolutionary ecologist, Dr Eric R. Pianka, was addressing the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, in early March, after the academy had named him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Present at Pianka's speech was Forrest M. Mim III, a popular science writer and editor of the bi-weekly journal, The Citizen Scientist. He reported:
"Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
"This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind ... I grabbed a notepad ..." ("Meeting Doctor Doom", The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006).
Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, "We're no better than bacteria!"
He argued that the sharp increase in the human population since the onset of industrialisation was destroying the planet. He warned that Earth would not survive unless its human population was reduced to a tenth of its present number.
He then offered drastic solutions, accompanying his remarks with a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
War and famine were insufficient for solving global overpopulation, he explained. Instead, disease was far more efficient and swift. At this point, Pianka displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls.
AIDS took too long to kill people off, he explained. His preferred method of exterminating over five billion human beings was via airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and kills its victims in days rather than years.
However, as Mim observed: "Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
"After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, 'We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.' "
After he finished his address, the audience burst into applause.
Mim reported: "It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause. ...
During a question-and-answer session, Pianka praised communist China's draconian one-child policy, and suggested that IQs are falling because only "uncaring people" (i.e., people with below-average intelligence) have large families.
Mim recalls how, once the questioning was over:
A few hours later, the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist."I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. ...""Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern. ..."
Warning
Executive director of the Society for Amateur Scientists, Dr Shawn Carlson, later warned in The Citizen Scientist (April 2, 2006):
"I believe, with the terrible experience of the bloodiest century in human history behind us, that all men and women of conscious in the 21st century must be proactive in our opposition to genocidal or apocalyptic philosophies, before they have the chance to inspire some new champion with the will to take their conclusions to the next step.
"When the professional scientists have lost their sense of moral outrage at such ideologies, then it falls to America's great community of citizen scientists to be the conscious of science."
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
Also a must read....
...an email from Western Journalism
"...Ebola that can be spread through the air already exist in the animal world!" see below
Even if you believe that the CDC is capable of identifying and isolating all of
the infected after the fact, how does the CDC propose to monitor all
of the people who had direct and indirect contact with the infected individual?
The short answer is, they can't.
Oh yes, we're being reassured that Ebola can't be spread through the air and that transmission is only possible through "direct contact with body fluids," but one of the pesky facts about Ebola that the government is downplaying is that the Ebola virus can live outside of a human host.
It's not necessary to come in contact with the infected individual... you only need to come in contact with an infected individual's body fluids.
Here's what the Public Health Agency of Canada says: "Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces... Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions... When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4C [approximately 40 degrees Farenheit], Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days."
In other words, is it possible for a man carrying the Ebola virus to enter the country, show symptoms of the disease and become contagious days later, sneeze or cough on his hand, touch a door-knob (or some other surface) and infect others... perhaps hundreds... who touch that door-knob hours (or even days) later?
The short answer is, the government doesn't know, and even the medical community is unwilling to totally discount the possibility. The only response to that question has been equivocation... begrudging admissions that it's "possible."
The truth of the matter is that the medical community knows very little about Ebola and, in light of what is not known, why is the Obama Regime refusing to implement reasonable travel restrictions on those who are coming from countries in West Africa or have recently travelled to countries in West Africa?
Oh yes, we're being reassured that Ebola can't be spread through the air and that transmission is only possible through "direct contact with body fluids," but one of the pesky facts about Ebola that the government is downplaying is that the Ebola virus can live outside of a human host.
It's not necessary to come in contact with the infected individual... you only need to come in contact with an infected individual's body fluids.
Here's what the Public Health Agency of Canada says: "Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces... Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions... When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4C [approximately 40 degrees Farenheit], Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days."
In other words, is it possible for a man carrying the Ebola virus to enter the country, show symptoms of the disease and become contagious days later, sneeze or cough on his hand, touch a door-knob (or some other surface) and infect others... perhaps hundreds... who touch that door-knob hours (or even days) later?
The short answer is, the government doesn't know, and even the medical community is unwilling to totally discount the possibility. The only response to that question has been equivocation... begrudging admissions that it's "possible."
The truth of the matter is that the medical community knows very little about Ebola and, in light of what is not known, why is the Obama Regime refusing to implement reasonable travel restrictions on those who are coming from countries in West Africa or have recently travelled to countries in West Africa?
The New York Times published an Opinion Editorial last month by Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Here's what Osterholm says: "What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world's public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."
Osterholm outlines a scenario "that virologists are loath to discuss openly but are definitely considering in private," namely, "that an Ebola virus could mutate to become transmissible through the air. You can now get Ebola only through direct contact with bodily fluids. But viruses like Ebola are notoriously sloppy in replicating, meaning the virus entering one person may be genetically different from the virus entering the next. The current Ebola virus's hyper-evolution is unprecedented; there has been more human-to-human transmission in the past four months than most likely occurred in the last 500 to 1,000 years. Each new infection represents trillions of throws of the genetic dice."
Osterholm goes on to discuss a very recent case in which the Ebola virus has spread through the "respiratory route" from pigs to monkeys. In other words, mutations of Ebola that can be spread through the air already exist in the animal world!
And Osterholm adds: "Why are public officials afraid to discuss this? They don't want to be accused of screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater — as I'm sure some will accuse me of doing. But the risk is real, and until we consider it, the world will not be prepared to do what is necessary to end the epidemic."
Osterholm penned this editorial weeks ago, long before Ebola hit the news cycle in the United States. Keeping in mind that so much is unknown, is it unreasonable to demand that our elected officials shame the Obama Regime into implementing travel restrictions from infected countries and barring entry into the United States from those who have recently travelled to infected countries?
Do not trust the Obama Regime and don't let anyone tell you that you're nuts for demanding that our government act in a reasonable manner. It's time to call some elected officials on the carpet and if you're reading this alert, then you're among an elite group of patriotic Americans and activists who are willing and able to exert the necessary pressure to make them act in a reasonable manner. 1
______________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment