There is absolutely no doubt, that aids is a horrible disease as well as
ebola. BUT in the past ten years we have seen campaigns for the use of
contraceptives etc., that actually seems to have been working, at least
in the west. Therefor there is hope, that this disease will "die out".
Ebola is another ballgame. There is no way to protect effectively
against this disease, and we have seen at mutation of this virus, Ebola
Reston, that evidently was airborn (luckily it only affects monkeys).
That is why i consider this a bigger threat than aids. Aids is also
easier to track, because it needs very specific conditions to be
transferred. That doesn't seem to be the case with ebola.
By the way, i really don't think, that this virus is a product of the
united states army. As a former soldier, i am aware of the problems of
the use of bio-weapons in general. They are extremely difficult to
control, and therefor not a weapon one normally would use in war,
because there is no reason to contaminate an area, that later,
eventually, could be considered spoils of war. What would you use it for
then? Speculations of that kind belongs to hollywood.
But think of it. As Richard Preston says, is an Ebola-infected person in
reality only 24 hours away from any major city in the world. In any one
of those citys, there is formidable conditions for transferring this
virus, just think of how many persons you are in close contact with
during a normal day. That is why i mean, that there is every reason to
By the way, i did see the movie "outbreak", and it has absolutely
nothing to do with my speculations. It just happens, that I find Ebola
Interestint, frightening, and fascinating.
Erik J. Boklund
Studen of political and environmental science
E-mail: Johann at RUC.DK