Author Topic: Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!  (Read 842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
- The Daily Sheeple - http://www.thedailysheeple.com -



Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!

Posted By NaturalNews Network On October 16, 2014 @ 3:10 am In Armageddon Scenarios,Editor's Choice,Featured,Health,News,Perspectives,Science | No Comments


Doctor-Computer-Face-Mask-Heart-Beat-Glasses [1]

A jaw-dropping report released by the World Health Organization on October 14, 2014 reveals that 1 in 20 Ebola infections has an incubation period longer than the 21 days which has been repeatedly claimed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

This may be the single most important — and blatantly honest — research report released by any official body since the beginning of the Ebola outbreak. The WHO’s “Ebola situation assessment” report, found here [2], explains that only 95% of Ebola infections experience incubation within the widely-reported 21-day period. Here’s the actual language from the report:

95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval. [1]

Unless the sentence structure is somehow misleading, this passage appears to indicate the following:

• 95% of Ebola incubations occur from 1 – 21 days
• 3% of Ebola incubations occur from 21 – 42 days
• 2% of Ebola incubations are not explained (why?)

If this interpretation of the WHO’s statistics are correct, it would mean that:

• 1 in 20 Ebola infections may result in incubations lasting significantly longer than 21 days

• The 21-day quarantine currently being enforced by the CDC is entirely insufficient to halt an outbreak

• People who are released from observation or self-quarantine after 21 days may still become full-blown Ebola [3] patients in the subsequent three weeks, even if they have shown no symptoms of infection during the first 21 days. (Yes, read that again…)

Any declaration that an outbreak is over requires 42 days with no new infections

Underscoring the importance of the 42-day rule, the WHO document openly states that a 42-day observation period with no new outbreaks is required before declaring the outbreak is under control. In the WHO’s own words:

WHO [4] is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over. [1]

W.H.O. “alarmed” over false pronouncements of negative Ebola tests

Just as disturbing is the WHO’s open warning that government health officials who are announcing negative Ebola findings in patients mere hours after them being tested are grossly misleading the public and essentially practicing quack medicine.

As explained by the WHO:

WHO is alarmed by media reports of suspected Ebola cases imported into new countries that are said, by government officials or ministries of health, to be discarded as “negative” within hours after the suspected case enters the country. Such rapid determination of infection status is impossible, casting grave doubts on some of the official information that is being communicated to the public and the media. [1]

In other words, WHO is telling us that all those public pronouncements by government health authorities are meaningless. An Ebola infection determination cannot be made in mere hours, it turns out. In fact, as WHO explains, a suspected case of Ebola must be observed and tested for 48 hours before any degree of certainty can be reached about the Ebola infection status:

Two negative RT-PCR test results, at least 48 hours apart, are required for a clinically asymptomatic patient to be discharged from hospital, or for a suspected Ebola case to be discarded as testing negative for the virus. [1]

“No signs” that outbreaks are under control

Finally, this WHO report goes on to conclude that the Ebola outbreaks of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone are multiplying out of control. The report even cites the curious phenomenon of unexpected outbreak [5] surges taking place in areas once thought to be eradicated:

In Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, new cases continue to explode in areas that looked like they were coming under control. An unusual characteristic of this epidemic is a persistent cyclical pattern of gradual dips in the number of new cases, followed by sudden flare-ups. WHO epidemiologists see no signs that the outbreaks in any of these 3 countries are coming under control. [1]

Is it possible that these resurging outbreaks are being caused by governments failing to monitor potentially infected Ebola victims for a full 42 days? If they only observe them for 21 days, then 1 out of 20 infected victims may be cleared as “clean” and allowed back into the population where they soon become symptomatic and spread the disease even further.

U.S. doctors and health officials have been taught the wrong number: 21 days is only HALF the duration

It is extremely disturbing to realize that, to our best knowledge, every single person in the United States who has been suspected of harboring Ebola has been instructed to monitor symptoms for only 21 days, not the necessary 42 days.

This means that Ebola-infected U.S. citizens who are “cleared” of Ebola may still erupt with the deadly virus for a period of three more weeks.

Why hasn’t anyone reported this until now? How is this not one of the single most important pieces of information in the world at this moment when all human life on our planet is now legitimately threatened by an uncontrolled viral outbreak with a 70 percent fatality rate and no recognized treatments or cures?

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple [6]


Contributed by NaturalNews Network of NaturalNews.com [7].

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.


Article printed from The Daily Sheeple: http://www.thedailysheeple.com

URL to article: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/shock-w-h-o-report-ebola-has-42-day-incubation-period-not-21-days_102014

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/shock-w-h-o-report-ebola-has-42-day-incubation-period-not-21-days_102014/doctor-computer-face-mask-heart-beat-glasses

[2] found here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

[3] Ebola: http://www.naturalnews.com/Ebola.html

[4] WHO: http://www.naturalnews.com/WHO.html

[5] outbreak: http://www.naturalnews.com/outbreak.html

[6] The Daily Sheeple: http://www.TheDailySheeple.com/

[7] NaturalNews.com: http://www.naturalnews.com/

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2014, 06:22:56 pm »
Quote
• 2% of Ebola incubations are not explained (why?)

That actually makes sense and gives further validity to the study. The 2% will consist of people who have no firm data on their initial exposure, so a timeline can not be given.

21 days is reasonable to aim for. Sure, it can be as high as 42 days, but people don't always get ebola on their first contact with it, or the first infection attempt is unsuccessful for whatever reason.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2014, 07:56:26 pm »
That actually makes sense and gives further validity to the study. The 2% will consist of people who have no firm data on their initial exposure, so a timeline can not be given.

21 days is reasonable to aim for. Sure, it can be as high as 42 days, but people don't always get ebola on their first contact with it, or the first infection attempt is unsuccessful for whatever reason.

Makes sense.  I guess the point is that there are almost always going to be outliers when it comes to something like ebola.  All information has to be treated as fluid - subject to change as more cases are studied - and - as the virus itself mutates.
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,475
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Re: Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2014, 08:44:49 pm »
It's typical of Naturalnews to distort what is an issue of basic statistics. 95 percent would be a 2-standard deviation confidence interval. The 3% is the chance that an ebola incubation period falls outside that interval. The 2%, statistically speaking, is the chance that it is less than zero days, obviously an impossibility.

So why do they choose 42? Not necessarily because ebola actually has a chance of incubating up to 6 weeks, but because that's double the 21-day interval. Once you get to a full month, you've already reached the 3-standard deviation threshold, approximately 99.5%.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024