Is the government telling us the truth about the Ebola outbreak?

lab cc

I look at it this way. Put yourself in the shoes of whoever makes the call to announce to the public that Ebola is now a problem which people need to concern themselves with in the United States.

As soon as you announce that Ebola or something like it with a mortality rate of over 50% has spread the knock-on effects are tremendous. The stock market would take a serious hit (we are in the midst of a selloff right now but nothing panicky),  people might stop traveling, people might stop shopping, the whole economy could be hammered. So telling the public that they need to protect themselves actively from a deadly virus is obviously a very serious business. One does not want to get it wrong.

I pray – literally – that we are being told the truth and that the Ebola scare will die down and that the disease will retreat back to the tropical forests which line the Ebola River. (Not that I want anyone infected there either.)

But I am paying attention and I think at least right now everyone should be.


As to the five other patients, ABC News reported on Tuesday that “The CDC said has tested blood samples from six people with possible Ebola symptoms who had recently traveled to West Africa.” The report did not specify where all six patients were, but did not suggest they were all in New York. In fact, the same ABC report mentions a case in Ohio, where a woman tested negative for the virus.

Additionally, the CDC reported that one patient at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland was tested for Ebola. While testing negative for Ebola, the woman was found to have contracted malaria.

This leaves three patients across the country that have been tested for Ebola, with the CDC not stating whether they tested positively or negatively, or where they are.

Click here for the article.