Have you touched an Ebola Patient’s Puke, Sweat, Sh*t, or Blood? If Not, You Don’t Have Ebola.

[Ms. Toad]

113. I prefer peer reviewed articles.

They are closer to real science, which you say you is your position.

The few peer reviewed articles which specifically explored transmission of Ebola in the absence of direct contact (1) have documented 1 case definitively, and (2) documented 12 additional suspected cases. Articles of that caliber have also documented the presence of Ebola on surfaces with no visible bodily fluids, and none rule out the possibility of transmission. They do rate it as low (as I have repeatedly said), and they rate it as still low - but potentially higher - in public areas which are not as rigorously cleaned as the isolation wards in which they ran the tests than. Public areas like, for example, planes or bridal shops.

You asked me to come up with a single case that was not contracted by direct contact with fluids - and I provided you with one confirmed case, and 13 additional cases where it could not be ruled out.

You say you are touting science, not panic - yet I am the one linking to scientific peer reviewed articles, and you are the one posting a conversation engaged in and transcribed for the mass market.

You have insisted that the CDC acted properly - yet they have admitted their earlier protocol was inadequate, and have implemented essentially the protocol I have said they should have been following from the first contact with Mr. Duncan. Feel free to go back and search my posts if you don't believe me.

You are the one who has repeatedly made vulgarity filled, hair on fire posts demanding that everyone accept that the CDC and Amber Vinson are perfect, that no one is at risk, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a complete idiot - while my responsive posts have logically and systemically countered every claim you have made. And once I counter each claim, you change the demand and engage in more name calling.

I don't think I'm the one with the problem with science here.