Ebola scare: Canadian lab worker quarantined after possible exposure

Tuesday, November 15, 2016 by: Vicki Batts
Tags: Ebola, Canada, infectious disease

---

(NaturalNews) Last week, Canadian health officials reported that an employee of a government-run infectious disease lab may have been exposed to the Ebola virus. The incident took place at a level 4 containment lab belonging to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease – which is part of the Canadian Science Center for Human and Animal Health located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

CNN reports that the individual in question was working with pigs that had been infected with the deadly Ebola virus for scientific research. It appears that researchers are trying to understand how the immune system reacts to the virus. The employee is reported to have been following standard safety protocols and was wearing the appropriate protective suit. Unfortunately, during the standard decontamination process for exiting the lab, an unpleasant discovery was made: the employee's suit had a split seam. Any kind of opening in the suit would compromise protection, and is a clear indication that exposure to the virus may have occurred.

Dr. John Copps, the director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the worker's employer, said, "Our employees are well aware of the risks and how to control them. All proper emergency procedures were followed."

Ebola is a very serious disease. The World Health Organization describes the Ebola virus as an acute, severe illness that is often fatal. The first outbreaks of Ebola occurred in remote villages in Africa, but more recent outbreaks have been occurring in more industrialized, urban areas as well. According to the WHO, past outbreaks have had fatality rates that ranged from 25 to 90 percent. Initially, it can be difficult to distinguish Ebola from other infectious diseases, like typhoid or malaria. The incubation period – which is the time between exposure and the manifestation of disease symptoms – typically is between 2 and 21 days. Humans are not considered infectious until symptoms begin to show themselves.

The first symptoms of Ebola are very similar to typical cold or flu symptoms. Muscle aches, fatigue, fever, headaches and sore throats are all common. After these symptoms present, they are followed by the onset of vomiting, diarrhea, rashes, and symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function. Both internal and external bleeding, such as oozing from the gums and bloody stools, may also be present in some cases. Low white blood cell and platelet counts and elevated liver enzymes are lab values that can also indicate the disease's presence. The disease originates in animals and is then spread to humans. Human-to-human transmission occurs through contact with contaminated bodily fluids or tissues.

Rebecca Gilman, spokeswoman for the Public Health Agency of Canada says that there is currently no reasons to suspect that the employee had come into contact with bodily fluids from the infected pig. Local officials report that they begun monitoring the employee and that the potentially exposed individual has begun 21 days of "self-isolation."

Other government agencies have also come forward to help assuage any concerns that Canadians and other countries might be experiencing. Dr. Theresa Tam, deputy chief public health officer of the Public Health Agency has said, "At this point, there is no risk to Canadians, to the community or to other employees of the lab, because the individual is not infectious." The agency has also announced that they chose to share this information in the name of transparency.

Apparently, the supposedly exposed employee was also presented with the option of receiving an experimental Ebola vaccine as a "preventive measure." Has there ever been any reason to believe that vaccinating a person already carrying an infectious disease is beneficial? If this person already has the virus circulating in their bloodstream, what would be the point of putting more viral material into their body? That's right, there isn't one – except to use them as a willing human test subject.

I think it is safe to say that giving a human being an unapproved, untested vaccine for a lethal disease they may not even have is absolutely reckless, and potentially very cruel -- especially if this person were to then become infected thanks to their vaccine.

Naturally, the agency is not so inclined as to discuss whether or not the person accepted the jab, due to "patient privacy."

Sources:

CNN.com

WHO.int