Ebola hoax demolished

anyone got the news? The WHO has just released its latest buletin on Ebola outbreaks in South West Africa, depicting a clear scenario:

Guineahomepage_liberiaSierra LeoneDoes anyone still remember the figure “1,4000,000 ebola cases by January 2015”, spread across the Globe in September 2014 (let’s thank the New York Times) by usefull idiots self proclaiming as journalists? And does anyone still remind the figure came out in mid October according to which 10,000 new weekly Ebola cases were forecasted by December 2014?

As a matter of fact, the total cases figure (Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia) in January 2015 reached 22,000 cases and the death toll 8800 cases. The new weekly cases is below 100.

Containing the outbreak has been a success. Ebola is over. Did you get the news? I guess no. Shouldn’t we celebrate a success?

I explained in previous posts that the Ebola global emergency was a social psicology experiment. An HOAX manufactured twisting data, manipulating people ignorance in order to get to uneeded emergency measures. WHO, under pressure of US, has opened the doors to vacines; experimental vacines. Actually non tested, non existing vacines, for defeating a disease which has proceudres of containment and cures known since the ’70s.

And indeed, this 2014 outbreak has been contained with the traditional methods, which work fine when adopted. This is the problem; the establishment is not interested in making people aware that the fear is over and that vacines are not and were not needed.


By the way now the doors to vacines are open, so the doors to the US/NATO controlled UN (WHO), so the doors to our superior values, culture and interests.


#Ebola going down, fear remains high

This is a short update on Ebola. The count of cumulative cases has increased, of course, moving from 9900 (19th of October) to 13000 (2nd of November); the number of “confirmed cases, is anyway lower and it is around 8000, and the difference is due to the accounting that takes in consideration also “probable” and “possible” cases, of which only a minority actually happens to be “confirmed Ebola cases”; please read the previous posts to understand why and how.

That being said, even if the cumulative count has increased, obviously, the trend is decreasing as also the WHO is admitting in his latest buletin.


The overall figure of new weekly cases across the three Countries (S.Leone, Guinea, Liberia) anyway has stabilized and going down, and it is now around 400. In Guinea the trend is stable and below the 100 quota.

guinea % Nov

In Liberia the trend is in “dying” tail.

liberia 5nov

In Sierra Leone still the count is high but it is appearing evident it has surpassed its peak value and is going gradually down.

sierra 5nov

I suppose you have not received this news by the media, fear is business.

Ebola fear. Hoax explained

In my three previous posts (“EBOLA. FACTS, SPECULATIONS AND LIES“, “AND THE EBOLA HOAX CONTINUES…“, “EBOLA EMERGENCY HOAX. BUSTED!“) I pointed out how the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, while actually being a grave concern for the local population, is not a global emergency and it is a media manufactured fear factor.

On the 26th of September there were forecasted 1,400.000 Ebola cases in 4 months. On the 10th of October 10,000 new weekly Ebola cases were forecasted. All that, by twisting the data produced by the WHO.

 This is the reason I call it an HOAX.Fear-Is-A-Lie

The WHO has just released a new report that confirms a “steady” trend for the Ebola outbreaks in the three most risky countries, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.




As you can see, Sierra Leone shows signs of stabilization of the outbreaks even if yet the figure is far from a decreasing trend and it still appears to be the Country raising more concerns; in the case of Guinea the outbreak is steady at roughly 100 new cases per week; in the case of Liberia the number of weekly cases is decreasing and the number of “confirmed” ones is already very low.

If we take in consideration only the confirmed cases, the compound figure (below) shows a converging pattern around the cumulative figure of 450 new weekly cases, most of them concentrated in Sierra Leone. In the picture I took in consideration the trend starting from the 1st of June for simplicity.


It is likely that, while we can have in coming weeks occasional spikes, the trend will be decreasing. And there is no reason, at all, to assume that in less then 10 weeks we can move from a figure of roughly 500 weekly cases to 10,000 (20x times); the historical trend does not support this “estimate” and recent development leads in a different direction.

You may have noticed that the histograms produced by the WHO in its latest buletin take in consideration also probable and possible cases. This is, in a way, correct, qualitatively but not quantitatively. But they help to keep fear high, and it will be more clear what I mean, in few passages.

Below a table extracted from the WHO buletin (19th October):

tableFirst thing you’ll notice is that there is a huge discrepancy between the “confirmed” figure and the overall figure collecting also suspect and probable cases. The more comprehensive figure actually is useful to have an idea of the problem relevance, but in quantitative terms it makes a very bad job in depicting the trend of the outbreaks.

You’ll notice one thing (maybe); in Liberia the cumulative figure of Ebola deaths outnumbers the cumulative figure of Ebola confirmed cases; 1241/965 is 129%.

How is it possible? The reason is simple; the deaths of probable and suspect cases are screened for Ebola, days after the deaths happened and if the screening is positive they increase the number of Ebola confirmed deaths but not the number of “confirmed” cases. Bad accounting? Probably there is no bad will, but it must be clear that if they did the job correctly the figure of confirmed cases would be higher in past weeks and the decreasing trend of the Ebola oubreak (especially in Liberia) even more evident.

You may wonder: “how likey is a probable or suspect case to be a confirmed case?” This is a legitimate question, since as you can spot in the Liberia case the high number of suspect + probable cases do not translates in confirmed cases. Why?

The answer is not that hard and “deaths” will help us. If we compare the figure of this latest buletin (19th October) with the one issued on the 24th of September, we’ll notice the following:

  • Cumulative confirmed ebola cases increased by 8,4%, while confirmed ebola deaths increased by 85%
  • Cumulative probable ebola cases increased by 43,4%, while probable ebola deaths increased by 35%
  • Cumulative suspect ebola cases increased by 73%, while suspect ebola deaths increased by 60%

Why the number of confirmed Ebola deaths increases at a rate 10 times higher than the rate of confirmed Ebola cases, while the probable and suspcet cases increase at a lower rate (80%) than the probable and suspect Ebola deaths? It is because, once a supsect or probable death case is confirmed to be due to Ebola infection, it moves into the confirmed Ebola deaths toll.

This means that roughly 20% of suspects and probable Ebola deaths become confirmed Ebola deaths. It is reasonable to assume, thus, that roughly 20% of probable and suspect cases are actually Ebola cases.

Is this 20% a certain figure? No, but it is very indicative.

Some may argue that “not all suspect and probable cases” have been screened. Most likely. But if you make the same exercise I presented, by comparing the buletin of the 19th of October with the one issued on the 8th of October, and the latter one with the one issued on the 24th of September, you’ll get consistent results.

So, even if the figure of 20% might not be 100% accurate, it is highly likely  that only a minority of probable and suspect cases are actually Ebola cases.

So why the media, and some WHO high rank representatives, keep spreading FEAR talking about an exponential growth that it is not happening? I’ll try to explain it with two pictures, because pictures are worth a million words.AMI

Above, the price development of the shares of African Mineral, a company mining precious minerals in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. Since the beginning of the year it has lost 91,6% of value on London Exchange. Those familiar with finance will spot the high volume of transactions at the end of Septemeber, when the CDC/WHO opened the door to vacinations.Newlink

Above, the price development of the shares of NewLink Genetics Corporation, a BioTech company owning some of the patents needed for vacines and pharmaceutical products considered by the WHO. Since June it has increased the value of its shares by almost 100% at the Wall Street Stock Exchange (Nasdaq). Those familiar with finance will spot the high volume of transactions (after the pitfall of stock exchanges, at the beginning of October) in the last week, in concomitance with the Ebola case at new York.

Fear is a lie, finance tells the truth.

Ebola emergency hoax. Busted!

Actually I should have titled this post as “Journalism, the lost profession“, but the #Ebola hashtag is much more trending.

On the 26th of September I dealt for the first time with the Ebola hoax as soon as the CDC published its fear mongering prediction of the upcoming end of human species, promplty spread around the globe by the mass propagandists, such as The New York Times. I explained how the CDC manufatured the emergency leveraging on the peak rate of new weekly infections in the last 3 weeks of September, which accounted roughly 650 new weekly cases of ebola infections. As I clarified, the apparent ramp up of ebola cases could be easily be explained:

the period of observation is too short, and what the numbers really “measure”, is the development of the observation system and not the development of the epidemologic system to be observed.

CDC misinterpreted (ignorance or bad will?) the actual data and made projections that simply have no basis. I teach Maths, among other things, but anyway my conclusion would be drew by any mathematician or statistic expert.

What is more worrying is that these data should have been questioned by any reasonable person, but they haven’t.

If Ebola exists since 1976 and it has always been contained, how can it become an emergency, 38 years later?

And if the outbreak could lead to 1,4 millions infections in just 4 months, why international organizations and the US do not quarantine people travelling from the West Africa?

The point is that “reason disappears as fear takes the scene”.


Despite the evidences that there was no reason to assume an international emergency and the history of Ebola outbreaks demonstrating that is was possible to contain them, uninamously, the mass (establishment) media kept propaganding fear, day after day.

A acouple of days ago, media outlets mainstreamed the news according to which the Ebola outbreak could reach, by the end of this year, the figure of 10,000 new cases per week. Below just a few example of articles spreading this nonsense information:

African Union News  – 15 October 2014

Zerohedge – 14 October 2014

The Advertiser –  15 October 2014

The New Haven Register – 14 October 2014

Top World Headlines – 15 October 2014

…and the list could go on and on; same unfoundend content, almost identical headlines.

On the 14th of October I published a second post, explaining that also this new figure had no ground, as well the former, and the actual new Ebola cases per week were decreasing, from the 650 weekly new cases (end of September) to 530 new weekly cases (mid October), making reference to the official WHO report published on the 10th of October.

Today the WHO has just published updated figures (this and this). The WHO report on the 26th of September, on top of which the CDC produced its infamous fear mongering projections, took in consideration probable and confirmed cases of Ebola. In this latest report WHO publishes new histograms merging “confirmed” and “probable” cases with “suspected” cases; suspected cases account anything compatible with Ebola early symptoms (but can also be symtoms of other deseases such as malaria, flow, etcetera).

Lack of coherence or desire to keep numbers high? Let’s not digress, because, anyway, the new “colourful” histograms do a good job to me.


In the graph above, you have the Liberia case histogram (Liberia is the Country in the spotlight) from the latest WHO report. As you can see, the number of the new weekly “confirmed” ebola cases (orange ones)  reached their top figure in mid September, they have dramatically decreased and are now around 10 (in mid September the figure was 250), despite the report admits it lacks some data from October the 12th. The the new weekly “probable” ebola cases (green ones) have decreased and are now around 100. The suspecetd cases are the only ones that keep being almost constant, so far, but apparently they do not translate in probable or confirmed cases. If the blue does not translate in green, and the green does not translate in orange, that simply means that, statistically, most of them were not ebola cases.

The “confirmed cases” figure, as well the cumulative figure, teach us one simple thing; As the Ebola monitoring system develops the outbreak figures tend to sabilize.

The figures of some of the other Ebola affected countries show slighlty different patterns with very litttle figure of “probable” and “suspected” cases and higher fiugres for the trend of “confirmed” Ebola cases. This of course is not possible; “probable” and “suspected” cases must outnumber the “confirmed” cases, and the reason this is not happening in the histograms is because of lack of laboratories and bad accounting.


This is the reason for the disclaimer:

Data are based on official information reported by Ministries of Health up to the end of 12 October for Guinea and Sierra Leone, and 11 October for Liberia. These numbers are subject to change due to ongoing reclassification, retrospective investigation and availability of laboratory results.

Some may argue that the different patterns do not allow to draw closed conclusion, and I agree. But if that is the case how it comes that the media assume acceptable a prediction of 10,000 new cases per week, on the ground of such unstable and unreliable datasets?

So let’ stick to the facts. The compound overall figure of new weekly “pobable + confirmed” cases is decreasing. The observation period is short and undermines the evaluations on trends, making hard any projection on the long range. There is a lack of laboratories and bad accounting. Some patterns diverge, but the most coherent one (Liberia which hosts the highest number of laboratories) shows that new weekly confirmed cases are falling.

How is likely that we get from less then 600 new weekly cases to over 10,000 in 10 weeks? On which ground?

Let’s be clear Ebola is a grave concern and the death toll is increasing every day. And urgency is needed. But , one question arises. How the media, united, come to the conclusion that there can be up to 10,000 new weekly Ebola infections by the end of this year? How is it possible that the whole media system has fallen in the pitfall of journalistic fallacy, by spreading a blatant lie one month ago, and doing the same one month later? This is simply insane.

Money, ignorance or lack of integrity? All? You choose. Whatever the answer is one word explains everything.


post scriptum

Just a note in reference to my first post on this topic; the elections schedulled for mid October in Liberia, have been postponed.

And the “Ebola” hoax continues…

and this is the really worrying fact about this non existing “global emergency”. I dealt already with this Ebola fear mongering stuff a few days ago. If you haven’t, read this.

My previous post aimed at the debunking of the initial US manufactured hoax, egregiously brought to you by the “CDC/WHO/establishment media” production. In short: 5135 (confirmed plus probable) cases of ebola infection (and 2152 deaths) on the 21st of Septmeber that could become 1,4 million ebola cases by January 2015, so the US health organization (CDC) told the world.

After 3 weeks from that infamous report, the WHO publishes a new buletin. In this new report the number of ebola cases (confirmed plus probable) reaches the 6724 figure ,with 3470 deaths.

The CDC derived its Armageddon forecast thanks to a prediction of the development of the outbreak, based on statistics of the infections reported in previous 3 months. Apparently there was a quick ramp up of the infections (see the WHO histogram reported in my previous post) that “suggested” a possible explosion of the outbreak; as I explained that was not the case and only reasonable cause for the exponential-like growth was that

the period of observation is too short, and what the numbers really “measure”, is the development of the observation system and not the development of the epidemologic system to be observed.

As you can easily verify, in the latest report the WHO does not features anymore the “fear histogram”. but just the plain data. Why? Because if they published the updated histogram (maybe I’ll do it if I’ve time) you’ll have noticed that the “exponential like” progression of infection has stopped, obviously. The weekly increase of infections is now stabilizing, actually the rate at which the infection develops, is diminishing:

  • it was roughly 650 cases per week, in the first three weeks of September
  • it is roughly 530 new cases per week, in the last three monitored weeks


There is no Ebola emergency; nvertheless the results, the criminial minds behinds the hoax were looking for, have been already partially achieved. Let’s see.

The WHO stated on the 26th of September

On 11 August, a group of experts convened by WHO reached consensus that the use of experimental medicines and vaccines under the exceptional circumstances of the Ebola epidemic is ethically acceptable.

opening the way to (US) vacines despite vacines make not sense for a virus like Ebola; and there are alternatives as the WHO admits

During the 1995 Ebola outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of Congo, whole blood collected from recovered patients was administered to eight patients. Seven of the eight recovered.


In one well-known case, an American doctor, who became infected while working in Monrovia, Liberia, received whole blood from a recovered patient while still in Monrovia. He likewise fully recovered, though it is not possible to determine whether that recovery can be attributed to convalescent therapy, the administration of the experimental medicine, ZMapp, or the excellent supportive care he received in the United States.


In another well-documented case, a foreign medical doctor, who was infected in Sierra Leone, has been improving following outstanding supportive care. He did not receive treatment with any experimental therapy.


In yet another case, an American doctor, who became infected while working in Liberia, was subsequently treated in the US. As part of that treatment, he received a transfusion of convalescent plasma from blood donated by the first case mentioned above. The infusion was well-tolerated. Yesterday, he was declared by his attending physicians and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be “virus-free”. He is weak but fully recovered

Despite the above, the WHO comes out on the 1st of October with this:

From 29–30 September, WHO organized an expert consultation to assess the status of work to test and eventually license two candidate Ebola vaccines. More than 70 experts, including many from affected and neighbouring countries in West Africa, attended the event.  All agreed on the ultimate goal: to have a fully tested and licensed product that can be scaled up for use in mass vaccination campaigns.

Two candidate vaccines have clinical-grade vials available for phase 1 pre-licensure clinical trials:

  • One (cAd3-ZEBOV) has been developed by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It uses a chimpanzee-derived adenovirus vector with an Ebola virus gene inserted.
  • The second (rVSV-ZEBOV) was developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada in Winnipeg. The license for commercialization of the Canadian vaccine is held by an American company, the NewLink Genetics company, located in Ames, Iowa.

But there is more than vacines at stake. Why are the autorities not following the basic principles of epidemy contaiment, i.e. to quarantine people trvavelling from the risky countries? Evidently, someone wants the fear to spread across the globe, and especially in Europe; someone wants the stock exchanges to go down. They are doing it once again.

This is, arguably one of the dirtiest jobs the US fear factory has ever manufactured. Not because the US engineered the Ebola outbreak in West Africa (which could even be teh case given the sickness of the minds at Wallstreet and at the Pentagon). It is a dirty job beacuse it testifies how the US empire can easly bias the global media machine by manufacturing crysis and outbreaking fear, obscuring relevant facts and bringing the masses to self censhorship of reason.

Social psycology at its best.


The power of fear, this is the real scary thing.

L’Ebola che non c’è

Secondo il “The New York Times” l’Ebola potrebbe raggiungere la cifra iperbolica di 1,4 milioni di contagi, entro Gennaio 2015, e non in tutta l’Africa ma solo prendendo in considerazione alcuni Paesi dell’Africa Occidentale. Impressionante. Come arrivano a questo quadro di potenziale Giudizio Universale? Utilizzando alcune proiezioni del CDC (organizzazione Statunitense che si occupa di salute) che a sua volta fa riferimento ad alcuni dati provenienti dal WHO (World Health Organization, parte delle Nazioni Unite).

Con l’ausilio di un potentissimo “calcolatore” (molto probabilmente non supervisionato dall’ormai inutile intelligenza umana) il CDC delinea due possibili scenari di evoluzione epidemiologica dell’Ebola in Liberia e Sierra Leone; uno scenario pessimistico con 1,4 milioni di contagi ed uno ottimistico con 21 mila contagi. Lascio a voi le considerazioni sull’attendibilità una simulazione, che fornisce uno scenario pessimistico 65 volte peggiore di quello ottimistico.


Iniziamo con alcuni fatti sul virus Ebola. Ebola è un virus che può contagiare l’essere umano attraverso il contatto diretto con fluidi o materiali infetti, e che può condurre alla morte. Fino a qui ci siamo.

Per avere un’idea del potenziale di contagio dell’Ebola, possiamo fare riferimento a quanto dichiara proprio il WHO: Infection occurs from direct contact through broken skin or mucous membranes with the blood, or other bodily fluids or secretions (stool, urine, saliva, semen) of infected people. Infection can also occur if broken skin or mucous membranes of a healthy person come into contact with environments that have become contaminated with an Ebola patient’s infectious fluids such as soiled clothing, bed linen, or used needles.

Ciò significa che Ebola non ha un potenziale di contagio elevato perché l’area contagiata può essere fisicamente delimitata. Ebola non si trasmette per via aerea (quindi per prossimità con altri esseri umani infetti) né attraverso agenti esterni (come le zanzare nel caso della Malaria). Secondo i dati del WHO che ha monitorato le aree di contagio (dati dal 1976 al 2012), lo storico ci racconta che dal 1976 al 2012 sono stati registrati 2387 casi di contagio, di cui 1590 hanno portato alla morte, quindi con un tasso di mortalità pari al 67%.

Qui una prima annotazione sulla copertura mediatica di Ebola, che tipicamente parla di un tasso di mortalità che oscilla tra il 50% e il 95%. Come arrivano a questi dati terrificanti? Molto semplice. Ipotizziamo di avere il “Paese X” in cui tra Gennaio e Marzo si registri 1 malato di Ebola e questo paziente muoia; il tasso di mortalità è il 100%; ipotizziamo che tra Marzo e Dicembre si abbiano altri 99 casi di Ebola e 65 morti, con un tasso di mortalità del 66%. Il magheggio è fatto; abbiamo un tasso di mortalità che varia tra il 66% e il 100%, inteso? In realtà il tasso di mortalità corretto (che è per definizione una media aggregata e che non ha senso per piccoli numeri) sarebbe 66/100, ossia il 66%. Questo è il potere della matematica!

I dati di monitoraggio di cui sopra si riferiscono ai Paesi che hanno dimostrato sino ad oggi il maggiore rischio: Congo, Sudan, Uganda, Gabon, Costa d’Avorio.

Il fatto che nei 5 suddetti Stati le infezioni di Ebola siano state meno di 3000 in 36 anni, non significa che i numeri reali non siano ben più grandi, ovviamente. Ma quello che è importante, è registrare che in oltre 36 anni il numero totale di persone infettate dall’Ebola annualmente oscilla tra un minimo di 0 a un massimo di 425 (nel 2000, in Uganda) senza evidenza di un tasso di crescita del fenomeno. Emblematico è il caso del Congo dove il contagio Ebola è “partito” nel 1976 con 318 casi per finire a 57 casi nel 2013 (68  casi nel 2014).

Cosa ci dicono di fati registrati dal WHO? Alcune cose importanti:

  1. che anche se assumiamo (è ragionevole) che l’infezione sia maggiore di quanto contabilizzato, il tasso d’infezione reale non può essere maggiore del contabilizzato di diversi ordini di grandezza, altrimenti in 36 anni d’incubazione il contagio sarebbe già esploso
  2. non c’è alcuna tendenza di crescita dell’infezione nei 5 Paesi monitorati, anzi i dati contraddicono l’idea di un virus “mortale” con contagio fuori controllo. Viceversa i dati confermano in realtà la natura epidemiologica a basso potenziale di infezione del virus.
  3. In tutti i Paesi monitorati, il numero di casi riportato decresce stabilmente a partire dal contagio iniziale, coerentemente sia con il relativamente basso potenziale di contagio che con il fatto che le procedure “tradizionali” di contenimento sono già abbastanza efficaci nel ridurre l’espansione dell’infezione e il bollettino di morte:
    • In Congo si registrarono 318 casi nel 1976 con tasso di mortalità pari all’88%, divenuti 57 casi con tasso di mortalità del 51% nel 2012
    • In Sudan si registrarono 284 casi nel 1976 con tasso di mortalità pari al 53%, divenuti 17 casi con tasso di mortalità del 41% nel 2004
    • In Uganda si registrarono 425 casi nel 2000 con tasso di mortalità pari all’53%, divenuti 31 casi con tasso di mortalità del 67% nel 2004

A questo punto avrete sicuramente notato una cosa. Nei Paesi sopra menzionati, non compaiono né la Liberia né la Sierra Leone, i Paesi che oggi fanno la prima pagina del bollettino Ebola. In effetti, solo nel 2014, apparentemente, il contagio Ebola si è manifestato in Nigeria, Guinea, Liberia e Sierra Leone. Secondo il rapporto del WHO, questi Paesi nel 2014 contabilizzano 3486 casi di ebola e 1496 morti, con un tasso di mortalità del 43%. Il Paese con l’infezione più estesa è la Sierra Leone (1745 casi), quello con la mortalità più alta è la Guinea (56%).


Aggiungendo poi ai casi conclamati di Ebola, quelli “possibili”, cioè quelli in cui la presenza del virus non è stata verificata ma i sintomi del paziente sono compatibili e esiste un collegamento con casi verificati di Ebola, il numero di infezioni potenziali cresce a 5135 con 2152 morti (tasso di mortalità del 42%). Con ciò si arriva all’istogramma qui sotto.


Nel grafico si osserva una “rapida” crescita del fenomeno negli ultimi 3 mesi; e apparentemente il contagio era inesistente prima del 2014. Come è possibile che il contagio sia stato assente fino al 2014 e poi esploso in 3 mesi, in Paesi con scarsa sanità pubblica e confinanti con Paesi in cui il virus esiste da 36 anni?

Non è possibile, infatti.

Se infatti a primo “acchitto” il grafico suggerisce una crescita esponenziale, tipica dei fenomeni senza controllo, se osserviamo le ultime settimane saremmo tentati di concludere che il contagio del virus si sta fermando. Ma anche questa osservazione sarebbe non corretta. In realtà il punto è che il periodo di osservazione è estremamente limitato e quello che in realtà il grafico descrive è la crescita del “sistema di monitoraggio” e non la crescita del “sistema epidemiologico” da osservare.

Verosimilmente il virus continua a diffondersi, ma molto lentamente, come lo storico di 36 anni negli altri Paesi ha dimostrato.

E’ plausibile assumere che sia per questa ragione che il direttore del WHO Christopher Dye dichiara “stiamo avendo segnali che questo incremento non avverrà; è un po’ come fare le previsioni del tempo. Le possiamo fare con qualche giorno d’anticipo, ma guardare a mesi di distanza è molto difficile”.

Ma allora il CDC come è arrivato alla stima di 20,000 infezioni nello scenario ottimistico? Beh, considerando che il numero di infezioni registrate è per definizione inferiore a quelle esistenti, tale stima è ragionevole almeno come ordine di grandezza considerando le oltre 5000 infezioni potenziali contabilizzate. Ma come fa il CDC ad assumere come “ragionevole” lo scenario di 1,4 milioni di infezioni in 4 mesi, conoscendo lo storico degli altri 5 Paesi durato 36 anni?

Non può essere un errore commesso da specialisti di epidemiologia.

Ebola non è un’emergenza globale, questo è un fatto. Ma anche in termini “locali” è difficilmente caratterizzabile come emergenza. In termini comparativi, la Malaria infetta tra i 200 e i 300 milioni di persone nel mondo, e circa 700,000 persone ogni anno ne muoiono. La Malaria ha un tasso di mortalità più basso dell’Ebola ma è estremamente più diffusa, ed è endemica. E’ significativo notare che la Sierra Leone, che contabilizza oggi meno di 1800 casi di Ebola e meno di 600 morti, conti invece ogni anno circa 8000 morti per Malaria; e in Guinea la Malaria conta 9000 vittime l’anno, la Liberia 2000 morti ogni anno e in Nigeria i morti di Malaria sono oltre 120,000 l’anno.

Ma allora come è successo che un virus, l’Ebola, conosciuto sin dal 1976, con tecniche di contenimento, metodologie di prevenzione e cure tradizionali note, sia divenuta un’emergenza, nonostante il bollettino di morte e il tasso di infezione siano relativamente bassi?

E perché mai questa pressione mediatica per avere dei vaccini anti Ebola? Le procedure di vaccinazione sono previste per mali altamente rischiosi (e questo è effettivamente il caso per l’Ebola) con alto potenziale di diffusione (e questo non è il caso). E non c’è nessuna evidenza di un’emergenza, perché correre il rischio di fare più male che bene?

Cui prodest?

Stante i fatti di cui sopra, alcune mie speculazioni.

L’esplosione Ebola è stata costruita? No, ma in un certo senso, si! Ipotizzare che l’Ebola sia un virus costruito in laboratorio e poi diffuso per oscuri obiettivi, è pura speculazione senza prove.

Ciononostante, è stato costruito, da un punto di vista mediatico.

L’industria delle Bio-Tecnologie è una delle maggiori scommesse della società occidentale, in special modo degli Stati Uniti d’America. Tali imprese non creano mali per trovare poi la cura, semmai fanno l’opposto. Trovano un trattamento farmaceutico e quindi fanno il marketing del male da curare. Un esempio è la sindrome da disattenzione (AHDH), e gli USA ne sanno qualcosa.

Ebola sembra rientrare bene in questo tipo di scenario, ma la pressione di Obama per un vaccino, e il marketing fatto nel suo discorso del ruolo degli USA come i salvatori del popolo Africano dal loro infausto destino, suggerisce che ci siano molteplici interessi strategici che cercano di farsi strada nel solco segnato dal virus Ebola…

Sicuramente le aziende BioTech devono ripagare i loro azionisti, ma c’è di più. L’Africa è la nuova (si fa per dire) terra di conquista sia per gli USA che per la Cina, due nazioni che competono nella supremazia delle risorse naturali dell’unico continente senza una vera e propria sovranità. La Cina ha guadagnato notevole terreno nell’ultimo decennio, e gli USA hanno ormai veramente poco da offrire; la salute pubblica è l’unica carta che possono giocare che abbia senso in Africa.

Non è un caso che l’amministrazione Obama abbia giusto poche settimane fa rinnovato accordi economici strategici in Liberia, e che ad Ottobre in Liberia si tengano le elezioni. Il vaccino prodotto dal vecchio e caro amicone americano è un ottimo strumento per consolidare la partnership tra Liberia e USA, e allo stesso tempo supportare la campagna politica degli “amici” africani.

Ovviamente, nel caso le cose dovessero andare storte, le basi militari sono già sul luogo, non si sa mai…

Ebola. Facts, speculations and lies

According to “The New York Times” Ebola virus could reach 1,4 million infections, by January 2015, in four months. Impressive. How do they get this figure? By “leveraging” on some “projections” from CDC (USA health related organization) who, in turns, “tailor” some epidemiological figures coming from the WHO (World Health Organization, part of the UN establishment).

The CDC provided, thanks to a powerful computer simulation (likely without any human intelligence contribution), two figures: a best and a worst-case scenario. In the worst case scenario the outbreak of Ebola could reach 1,4 million people;  in the best case scenario the outbreak could reach 21,000 people. A worst-case scenario that is 65 times worse than the best scenario? Reasonable, isn’t it?


Some facts. What is Ebola? It is a virus, than can infect a sane human body by direct contact with infected fluids or materials; and it can lead to death. Fine so far.

How much this is this virus epidemic and how deadly is it? According to WHO: “Infection occurs from direct contact through broken skin or mucous membranes with the blood, or other bodily fluids or secretions (stool, urine, saliva, semen) of infected people. Infection can also occur if broken skin or mucous membranes of a healthy person come into contact with environments that have become contaminated with an Ebola patient’s infectious fluids such as soiled clothing, bed linen, or used needles.

This implies that Ebola has a low contagion potential, because can be physically contained. It is not transmitted via air (proximity with infected human) or via external agent (as mosquitos in the case of malaria). According to the WHO, the Ebola outbreaks records (from 1976 up to 2012) cumulate in 36 years 2387 cases in total, 1590 of which resulted in deaths, with a death ratio of 67%.

Mass media in these days used to claim a deadly potential ranging between 50% and 95%. How do they raise the deadly figure? Pretty simple. Let’s imagine in country “X” we have, from January to March, 1 reported case of Ebola and the patient dies; in this case the mortality rate is 100%. And let’s assume that from March to December we have 99 cases of Ebola with 65 deaths; in this case we have 66% death rate. The trick is almost done, because we can draw the conclusion that “the death ratio ranges between 66% and 100%”, got it? While actually the mortality rate is 66/100, in other words 66%. That’s the power of math.

Those data, come from the countries with higher risk: Congo, Sudan, Uganda, Gabon, Cost d’Ivoire.

The fact that in the 5 above countries the reported Ebola human infections amounts to less than 3000 in 36 years, does not mean that the actual infections are that low. Many cases could have not been reported. However, it is important to note that in 36 years the total number of infected people ranges from a minimum of 0 cases up to a maximum of 425 cases (year 2000, Uganda) without showing evidence of an increasing trend. Emblematic is the case of Congo, where the Ebola reported infections ranging from a maximum level of 318 cases in 1976 down to 57 cases in 2012 (68  cases in 2014).

Then, what these data should teach us? A few things:

  1. even if we assume that the actual infection level is higher than what is reported, the real one cannot be higher than the measured by several orders of magnitude, because otherwise the infection would have already exploded in 36 years of incubation
  2. there is no increasing trend, at all, and apparently figures contraddict the idea of a deadly and contagious virus out of control. Actually, this is not surprising and instead it is consistent with the way the virus works.
  3. In all countries monitored, the number of reported cases decreases steadily from the initial detected outbreak figures; this is consistent both with the not so high infection potential of the virus and with the fact that traditional procedures of containment are somewhat effective in reducing the infection and thus the death toll:
    • In Congo were registered 318 cases in 1976 with mortality rate of 88%, become 57 cases in 2012 with mortality rate of 51%
    • In Sudan were registered 284 cases in 1976 with mortality rate of 53%, become 17 cases in 2004 with mortality rate of 41%
    • In Uganda were registered 425 cases in 2000 with mortality rate of 53%, become 31 cases in 2004 with mortality rate of 67%

At this point you will have noticed one thing for sure. In the above monitored countries, do not appear neither Liberia nor Sierra Leone, the countries that today make the first page of Ebola bulletin. Indeed only in 2014, apparently, Ebola outbreaks manifested in Nigeria, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. According to the WHO report, these countries in 2014 accounted for 3486 confirmed cases and 1496 deaths, with an average death ratio of 43%. The country with the highest infection level is Sierra Leone (1745 cases), the one with highest death ratio is Guinea (56%).

WHOThen WHO takes in account the “probable” cases of Ebola infections, meaning cases with symptoms compatible with Ebola and have linking with other Ebola cases. With the “probable cases” the count of “cases” grows up to 5135 and the deaths raises up to 2152 (42% death rate). This leads to the following histogram.


As you can see above, the count has ramped up quickly in the last months, and before 2014 was not existent. How is it possible? It is reasonable to assume that, given the proximity of the countries implied, the virus existed already in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and with that also humans infected.

At first glance the graph suggests an exponential growth, typical of epidemic phenomena out of control. However, how that can it be possible given the limited time span (4 months) and the low contagious level of the virus, as demonstrated by the other countries where such exponential growth did not happen, not in just 4 months but  in 36 years?

Indeed, it is not possible.

And if you look more carefully at the graph, you’ll notice that in the last weeks the trend seems to have stabilized. Is it because the infection spread stopped? We do not know. Likely the infection proceeds more or less at steady rate, a slow growth rate, as the 36 years known history of the virus teaches.

The real point is that the period of observation is too short, and what the numbers really “measure”, is the development of the observation system and not the development of the epidemologic system to be observed.

Indeed, this is the reason why WHO’s director Christopher Dye states “We’re beginning to see some signs in the response that gives us hope this increase in cases won’t happen”, acknowledging that the predictions come with a lot of uncertainties; “this is a bit like weather forecasting. We can do it a few days in advance, but looking a few weeks or months ahead is very difficult.”

Then, how did CDC come to the 20,000+ infections best case scenario figure? Well, that figure actually can be reasonable considering the actual numbers (around 5,000) and taking in consideration that a significant amount of infection cannot yet be in the record. But how can they assume as credible the 1,4 million figure, knowing the 36 years old history of previous outbreaks in other countries?

It cannot be a mistake made by specialists of epidemiology.

Ebola is not a global emergency, period. Comparatively speaking, Malaria affects between 200 and 300 million people worldwide, and roughly 700 thousands die every year. Malaria has a lower mortality rate compared to Ebola but is much more pervasive, and it is endemic. Notably, Sierra Leone, counting less than 1800 Ebola cases and less than 600 Ebola deaths, accounts for almost 8000 people dying every year of Malaria; in Guinea the Malaria toll accounts for 9000 deaths/year, in Liberia for over 2000 deaths/year and in Nigeria for over 120,000 deaths/year.

How did it happened that a virus, Ebola, known since 1976 with available containment and prevention methodologies and cures, has become an emergency, despite the low death toll (in absolute terms and comparative terms) and the low infection potential?

Moreover, given the above, why there is a push for vaccines? Vaccination procedures are meant to address high-risk diseases (and admittedly this is the case) with high infection potential (this is not the case). There is no evidence of an emergency, so why to rush?

Cui prodest?

Given the above facts, now it is time for my speculations. Has the “Ebola” outbreak been manufactured? No, but in a sense, yes!

To assume that Ebola has been engineered in laboratories, and thus released for achieving obscure objectives, is speculation without evidences.

Nevertheless, yes, it has been manufactured, manufactured by the mass media.

Biotech industry is one of the major bet of western economy, especially US ones; such enterprises do not create the disease and then the cure; they work the other way around. They discover a “treatment” and then they “market” the relevant disease. A relevant case is AHDH, and US citizens should know.

Ebola seems to fit nicely this scenario; however, the push from Obama for a vaccine, the marketing of the US as the ones that will save Africa people from their bad fate, suggest that multiple more strategic “interests” are looking for their way…

For sure, the biotech companies have to pay back their shareholders. However, there is more. Africa is the new greenfield, for the US and for China, two countries who are competing in the conquest of the natural resources of the only continent without a real sovereignty. China is gaining traction, US have very little to offer now, and probably health is the only card left that can be meaningful in Africa.

Obama administration has just recently established strategic business agreements in Liberia, and in October Liberia will host the local national elections. This is not a coincidence. The vaccines coming from the old American friend are a good tool to consolidate a long lasting partnership between US and Liberia, while at the same time to support the political campaign of the African “friends”. Obviously, in case things should go wrong, well, the military camps are already there, just in case…

I believe this is the African Blueprint.