The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Ebola Comes to Atlanta

medic1 said:
There is still much debate about the risk of infection from droplets found in the nose. As for "Did you read the article", this is why i added the caveat "if" Ebola is found in Atlanta.
If leading medical and scientific experts are still "debating" on whether this disease can be transmitted through droplets of fluid expelled by a person sneezing and inhaled by another. That for me is reason enough to at least consider that possibility.
One of the reasons why "millions" have not died of outbreaks in Africa is rather simple, isolation. There have been cases of entire villages being wiped out. The saving grace, for wont of a better description is the distance between many areas of population.
I hope this post explains my reasoning better, or easier for you to understand...
Click to expand...

Kulindahr said:
No, you've been asserting sneezes would transmit it, and that it spreads easily, despite the fact that both HWO and the CDC say the opposite, and you never mentioned research. For a supposed medical person, you show ignorance of what the authorities say -- and you had nothing to offer but your own opinion when those positions were pointed out to you. It took someone else to bring in material showing that there is apparently no longer that solid agreement -- and now you have the audacity to reference that as somehow showing your aren't ignorant! Maybe if you'd brought it up to begin with, you could make that claim, but since it took someone else to bring in that information, all you're doing is dodging and weaving.

And BTW, your "point all along" is still wrong: that new research shows it transmitting by aerosol between animals; it plainly says there is no indication it does such a thing between humans, or even between animals and humans.
Click to expand...

Then why do you change your position when called out? "Oh! It may be a mutation", i did bring it up when i posted that it is worthy of consideration when experts cannot wholeheartedly concur on methods of infection. In this thread i am done with you as well, you are just loathe to admit that your fount of all knowledge may be suffering a drought.
 
JayQueer said:
Ebola is extremely contagious. It has to be transmitted by air (through the droplets in a sneeze) or at least by touching contaminated surfaces. The problem is that, for Ebola, "contaminated surfaces" includes everything that touches a person with ebola. And even after someone survives Ebola, he can spread Ebola through having oral, anal or heterosexual sex (the semen/cum contains ebola for months)
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this crap?

According to WHO, the CDC, and a host of medical schools I reviewed, ebola is contagious, but is certainly NOT airborne; all the evidence says that among humans it is transmitted by touch.

BTW, that "months" is "nearly two months", according to WHO. There's something weird about that, IMO, since it seems to be the only way a survivor can still transmit the disease!
 
JayQueer said:
Oh yes, introducing Ebola to the US under a "quarantine" is perfectly safe.

Just like the US government responded appropriately to the AIDS crisis, the Obamacare insurance website was without glitches, & the US government managed Benghazi just fine, I'm sure the US government can make sure Ebola is quarantined. What could possibly go wrong?

(sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Are you aware of where they're going? of how this effort was achieved? There's not that much government involvement in the first place! This is being done by people who have been refining safety protocols for such things for over a decade, people on whom others rely regularly to take care of their health, people who regard disease as their hated enemy, not by government bureaucrats just going through the motions.
 
xbuzzerx said:
There's always cause for caution when it comes to the handling of a high threat biohazardous contaminant or disease.

But given that the CDC is yet to start a nationwide plague, this alarmism that they are incapable of being trusted with this type of containment procedure because you found an IRS mistake on your tax return is specious, at best.

P.S. If I'm not mistaken they've had ebola samples all this time, as well.
Click to expand...

Of course the CDC isn't running this show anyway -- it's Emory University, which I will point out is in the private sector.
 
medic1 said:
Then why do you change your position when called out? "Oh! It may be a mutation", i did bring it up when i posted that it is worthy of consideration when experts cannot wholeheartedly concur on methods of infection. In this thread i am done with you as well, you are just loathe to admit that your fount of all knowledge may be suffering a drought.
Click to expand...

I haven't changed my position. Your dance moves to try to pretend you weren't fear-mongering are pathetic; claiming that you said thins before you actually did might work on Dr. Who, but not here. Trying to pass off your error on some fantasy of "my" :fount of all knowledge" is pitiful; my "fount" here is WHO, the CDC, and a half dozen top medical schools.

There's still no evidence that it transmits as an aerosol between humans. If you have some, you should introduce it.

But given your clumsiness is communicating medical information, and your dancing around to try to justify yourself, I now regard your claim to be a medical professional of some sort as on par with a certain other JUBber and his claim to be a lawyer: a false front with little substance.
 
You can regard all you like, at least this time you are correct in saying the World Health Organisation, and not the HWO.

As for "fear-mongering", i stated that IF Ebola was found in Atlanta, i did not assert it was, then the consequences could be the death of American citizens.
As an aside, what you think about me causes me no distress at all. As i am sure that my thoughts about you are met with the same indifference. Carry on posting and quoting me, you will receive nothing in return.
 
medic1 said:
You can regard all you like, at least this time you are correct in saying the World Health Organisation, and not the HWO.

As for "fear-mongering", i stated that IF Ebola was found in Atlanta, i did not assert it was, then the consequences could be the death of American citizens.
As an aside, what you think about me causes me no distress at all. As i am sure that my thoughts about you are met with the same indifference. Carry on posting and quoting me, you will receive nothing in return.
Click to expand...

You said "if Ebola has been confirmed in Atlanta", which shows that you thought this was an issue of the disease being found in the city. And the fear-mongering is your assertion that it would then pop to other cities -- whereas every credible source says that just wouldn't happen in the US.
 
"Sous des conditions expérimentales, le virus arrive également à se propager par des gouttelettes ou des particules aérosol."

So do I ignore Wikipedia and rely on the "expertise" of a few members of JUB?
 
dpnice said:
"Sous des conditions expérimentales, le virus arrive également à se propager par des gouttelettes ou des particules aérosol."

So do I ignore Wikipedia and rely on the "expertise" of a few members of JUB?
Click to expand...

You realize that wikipedia is edited by the common man, yes? Which in a way is rather unfortunate since people can go in and mess up all your hard work. I once spent hours researching various deadly agents with notations and references included only to have someone wander by and fuck it up later.
 
If you actually want to quote wikipedia (and I wouldn't if I were you) then add the references for the quote you posted and check out the 'originals' as well to confirm information isn't skewed or outdated. They're located by number. If it says citation needed, dump it.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
If you actually want to quote wikipedia (and I wouldn't if I were you) then add the references for the quote you posted and check out the 'originals' as well to confirm information isn't skewed or outdated. They're located by number. If it says citation needed, dump it.
Click to expand...

Honestly do you think my "need to know" on the Ebola virus requires that sort of effort?

I just scanned the article to check up transmission and effects. I would presume that the majority of articles are written by people who know what they are talking about, or sufficiently so to give me the snippets of information I am looking for.

I am not actually writing my university thesis on the subject so a few out of date facts or misleading statements seems acceptable in order to get an overview of a subject.
 
I'd generally agree with you but you're arguing a specific detail, in which case some light checking-up is never amiss.

It's not heavy research, there should be numbers linking you to the resources' title, author and page number.

Also, never presume the articles know what they're talking about when joe schmoe can write or edit one. They're not peer reviewed by people in their respective fields so much as lightly looked over by whomever is available at the time. If that. Always prudent to check up on research.

***I type that as someone who reads and edits wikipedia for fun. Yeah, I'm that guy. A hit at all the parties, I swear. Anyway, never put trust in something you don't check out for yourself.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
............................ Anyway, never put trust in something you don't check out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Now surely that is obvious for anyone trying to inform themselves on a subject via the Internet.

I just hope that you are not telling me that rather than having a certain degree of confidence in Wikipedia for answering queries I should be relying on the information that I can glean from a gay forum.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top