http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/airport_screening_for_ebola_did_thomas_eric_duncan_lie_and_should_liars.single.html

A supposed philosopher no less. Duncan didn’t lie, but it’s ok he did. He was selfless and noble, but understandably seized the main chance; and it’s good all around that he did.

Left a comment on this “philosopher’s” homesite since Slate didn’t seem to offer space for one.

Good Lord, if ebola really strikes this country hard, expect to see the compassion pimping left manically dancing through the streets like ergot poisoned flagellants.

The Obedience to Authority, especially in the form of expertise as authority, is common. People in a group have a collective IQ far lower than the sum of the parts. Why is that? People literally stop thinking when a leader or authoritarian starts talking.

If hospital emergency rooms remain open will Ebola patients stagger in the door, Ebola will spread.

For cultural reasons I think that the CDC — indeed all Americans — missed a KEY element of pregnancies in west Africa.

Due to the varagies of the local food supply — going back into antiquity – it’s the universal tradition to stuff expecting mothers with calories — almost as if they were geese for the table.

And in such diets, FATS are much preferred.

FATS = a super abundance of LIPIDS in the bloodstream.

LIPIDS HAVE TO BE THE METABOLIC RESTRAINT AGAINST EBOLA.

It’s the only explanation as to why fruit bats and other herbivores can survive ebola. Such diets are strikingly low in fats/ lipids.

“Lipids are a group of naturally occurring molecules that include fats, waxes, sterols, fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamins A, D, E, and K), monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, phospholipids, and others.”

Williams’ hyper rapid progression of ebola is metabolically linked.

This also explains the universal mortality of pregnant African mothers from ebola.

It’s their diet. Every last mother is being practically force fed a high fat diet.

Diet must be a huge factor in ebola progression.

ANYONE with a high fat/ high lipid diet is going to experience ebola on steroids.

Ebola will be even more lethal in the First World — with its rich diets — than in the Third World.

&&&

Sulfites (common in red wine) may totally foul up the ebola chemistry — its lipid sheath.

Such fatty acids may be shifted over to ‘fatty bases’ in the presence of this stronger (organic) acid. (become a conjugate base)

&&&

Diet simply has to be a significant factor in ebola reproduction in vivo.

A low lipid diet may extend ones fight long enough to survive it.

Whereas, poor Williams shows, stuffing oneself silly with fats is a lethal diet.

This is the single factor that is separating the human reaction to ebola compared to the rest of mammalia.

This correlation is NOT going to be discovered in vitro.

This plausible factor needs to be brought to the attention of medical personnel immediately.

The extremely fatty diets of west African mothers are very likely to pass unknown in CDC circles. African locals would not bring it up as it passes as common knowledge. The level of force feeding normal there would never occur to any First World virologist.

I believe that the CDC does not recognize that lipids are harvested by ebola for its sheath.

But the virus is totally unable to synthesize them itself.

For if it could do so, then fruit bats would be falling out of the skies all over Africa.

(BTW, even fruit bats are not above eating the occasional insect that gets intercepted. This is how they obtain protein; they resemble humming birds in this regard.)

&&&

This is also an indication that chicken soup is NOT to be given to ebola candidates/ victims. Too fatty.

Being drunk on red wine may prove out as a superior form of nutrition. We can metabolize it. Ebola can’t.

Other than lipids, I can’t imagine any organic component that would limit ebola reproduction. It’s that simple of a virus.

It’s a core of DNA wrapped in a (largely) lipid sheath.

We have no hope of starving it of amino acids; lipids — just maybe.

This low lipid diet is no cure. I merely hope that it may provide a time window long enough for our immune systems to crush ebola.

&&&

I know of no other working theory that explains why humanity is so uniquely vulnerable to ebola.

It’s simple enough — and harmless enough — to test straight away.

It, the diet, should be administered to ebola candidates at the first sign of a fever — even earlier if this is possible.

Lipid concentrations may well explain why ebola comes on like gangbusters for some — and not quite as horrific for others.

Yes, that’s one of the many things that are puzzling about people who want to say Duncan was lying, he knew, etc.. They usually don’t stop to think exactly what they’re accusing him of, which is a really heinous act of callous selfishness of a very very high level. Purposely exposing hundreds of people to a very deadly and dread disease—including virtually all of those near and dear to him—and for what? So he can get better treatment in the US, and then purposely keeping mum about his prior ebola exposure when speaking to the medical authorities who might finally be able to help him and/or help protect his loved ones—thus, by his silence at the hospital, sealing his own doom? They’re accusing him of being a really vile person, and then an incredibly stupid and/or suicidal person, and ignoring the fact that prior to this incident, no one has described him as anything but a loving person towards family and friends, and even that the way in which he contracted ebola is a good demonstration of his care and kindness.

It makes absolutely no sense, and is an incredibly contradictory tale even as a hypothetical. And yet people cling to it for some reason. Lots of people.

And while I’m not altogether persuaded by your arguments, I do think you argue your case very, very well and don’t mind your fervent pushback. I think it sharpens the debate in very helpful ways.

Of course, I’m not emotionally invested. I’m more invested in “It’s here. What do we do now, individually, local community, and nationally?”

I have absolutely no problem with believing someone would be motivated to lie about his/her ebola status for any number of reasons, or about whether he/she had been in close contact with an ebola patient recently.

But the more I read, the more I realized that the facts in Duncan’s case did not support it in the least, once looked into with the tools of logic at hand. I want any assertion of guilt to be supported by the evidence. Although “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard in a criminal court, I don’t require that standard to come to conclusions in terms of my own personal opinion (it would be different if I were on a jury, of course). But the evidence for Duncan’s guilt is incredibly poor (not going to go into all the details of that here, since I have at great length in other posts and comments).

I am a compassionate person, but not a bleeding heart, liberal or otherwise. But when I come to believe, based on evidence and logic, that a person is innocent and is being falsely (and, in my opinion, illogically, or carelessly) excoriated as being guilty, I don’t like it.

Are you familiar with the term “bleeding heart liberal”?

If so, and with no disrespect to Neo, perhaps there’s some residual tendencies of “bleeding heart liberal” from Neo with regards to Duncan and charges of moral culpability and being morally complicit.

Although I don’t buy it, I certainly could see others believing that there’s a reasonable doubt as to what Duncan knew or suspected and when he knew or suspected from Neo’s defense attorney-like work.

A) Charge Guilt – Actually Guilty.
B) Charge Guilt – Actually Not Guilty.
C) Defend Innocence – Actually Innocent.
D) Defend Innocence – Actually Guilty.

100% certainty seems to be off the table at this point. I don’t see anything wrong with vigorously contending 60% certainty and above either way.