I merged the EHF article with this but I'm not sure it was the right thing. Is it not better to have seperate, linked articles, one on the disease the other on the virus rather than one merged article. This was demonstrated by the original opening article line "the Ebola virus is a severe, often fatal disease...", no it isn't - it is a virus, it causes a disease.
Certainly Ebola Sudan and Zaire should be redirects. I would prefer the information to be under EHF. Unless there are any objections I'll do the moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.7 ( talk) 07:40:09, 17 june 2002 (UTC)
Moved!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.7 ( talk) 9:28:03, 17 jun 2002 (UTC)
I'm wondering why Ebola virus gets redirected to Ebola. It should be the other way around. And also, I think Ebola virus and Ebola hemorrhagic fever should be two separate articles as one is the virus and the other is the disease it causes. Any objections? If not I would like to move around the redirects. Andrewr47 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
NPC1#Ebola_virus -- Biggerj1 ( talk) 08:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Tim ( talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone wrote "On the chart, it's 50% not 55%" near the end of the article. I'm not sure if this is vandalism, or someone was trying to make a suggestion about the chart and put it in the wrong place, or what. Also it says "virPENIS" above. 71.196.247.245 ( talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The assertion garcinia is "suspected of" able to stop replication of the virus relies almost entirely on a 15-year-old BBC article. A careful reading of that lede reveals no in vivo trials were conducted, and a careful web search reveals no other scientific supporting information has been generated since 1999, although anecdotal and wholly unsupported assertions proliferate on homeopathic websites. Nickrz ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What is "19 kb" in the context of virus length? Can the "kb" be cross-ref'd to its relevant article? Tomgg ( talk) 03:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The intro suggests this article is about the "Zaire ebolavirus" species, yet the Types section suggests its about Ebola viruses generally. If that's the intention, perhaps some of the information should be moved to the Ebolavirus article. However, if it is in fact about the "Zaire" species, shouldn't it have that as its article name? Evercat ( talk) 12:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So... what's the answer? Is it about the "Zaire" species or about Ebola viruses generally? If the former, the "Types" section should at least be renamed to "related viruses" or something. Also, why do we prefer this title to Zaire ebolavirus, which is a term used by WHO, for example? Evercat ( talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There's already an Ebolavirus article for the genus, though. Evercat ( talk) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The name Ebola virus is the original name of the virus. There is a difference between a virus and a species. Media outlets have blurred things for years. The ICTV has reaffirmed this nomenclature:
Hope this helps. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The natural dissymmetry of the virion makes its visual interpretation difficult enough. To present the CDC micrograph as the one image without a schematic anywhere to make its interpretation possible is a pedagogic mistake. One opinion. See expasy image, for an example of something that works ( [1]). Le Prof 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 06:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What does it mean for a species to be "the sole member" of a species? Aren't the designations Zaire ebolavirus and Ebola virus simply synonyms? -- Lambiam 06:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This section should be deleted or moved. It is about Reston virus (a different Ebolavirus). It should be moved to Reston virus's page and, if possible, rewritten.- Miguelferig ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed that info form all articles (the same two parragraphs was in 4 articles, with this one), incfluding Reston article because I doubt the cited source claims Ebola/Reston can be spread by air means. You can discuse ti in the Reston article talk page:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Reston_virus#Airborne_Variant_Exists.3F.3F
NaSz (
talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
don`t be to quick with deleting the airborne question
Ebola Airborne Information by the Center for Infectious Diease Research and Policy (CIDRAP)
"Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings."
Yes We Can ... ...Die ( talk) 18:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Accent on the "might". They don't say it is. You might check out Snopes' comments on that claim: [2] . Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebola in the Air Tonight
My common sense tells me that it`s no mather if Ebola is as highly airborne as those that cause measles and chickenpox. Even when it is only „light“ airborne it`s enough if you`re sitting next to a nice, infected nurse on an intercontinental flight for hours.
You say spread of the virus via coughing or sneezing is rare, where ist he evidence for this statement? You might check out this famously Mythbuster SloMo. 79.201.138.42 ( talk) 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Airborne-Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs
What do you think about this sientific research? It was well planed and accomplished. Scientific Reports,Published 15 November 2012
This is the first report of experimental interspecies virus transmission, with the macaques also used as a human surrogate.
All macaques became infected without direct contact.
They also have previously demonstrated that Ebola (ZEBOV) can infect pigs, cause disease, and transmit to in-contact pigs.
Experiment: Objects: Six four-week old Landrace piglets, cynomolgus macaques
The macaques were housed in two levels of individual cages inside the pig pen, and separated from the piglets by wire barrier in front of the bottom cages to prevent direct contact between the two species. The exhaled air were taken from the piglets to the macaques by normal room ventilation.
All animal manipulations were performed under CL4 conditions and followed Animal Use Document No. CSCHAH AUD# C-11-004.
Covenant242 ( talk) 08:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You belive, this scientific report is not a high quality sources?
Who you belive then ?
Monkeys were deliberately used as a substitute for human subjects. Thus, the explanatory power about the transferability of the results is valid to humans. When humans and monkeys are killed in the same manner by the Ebola virus, the infection in humans and monkeys is done in the same way. The work was filed on April 25, 2012, then checked & reviewed and published later in November 2012. It was made by credible canadian scientist, not from creationistic idiots.
Covenant242 ( talk) 10:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Guinea pigs from death row
You are very skeptical, aren`t you? I`ve delivered so much good and checkable scientific information,
and you say you don’t belive this … and you don’t think that necessarily happen that …
If you stand beside a monkey that would be struck down by a bullet you`ve never seen before, would you then also say: „What happens to other primates, does not necessarily happen to me?“
And I will bet --- you will not.
The kind of evidence you thinking about, can only be delivered if we ask Rick Perry for some guys from death row and then put them, instead of the apes, into the cages. Would that change your belives then?
By the way, you are lack of delivering your proof, that sneezing could not infect other humans ;-)
Covenant242 ( talk) 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
How long does the virus survive outside a host? Abductive ( reasoning) 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
By comparing the German Wikipedia article with our english version, you can see that there is much more & detailed information available. They have found unbelievable good sources, but the most is in german language – can anybody translate to fill our lack of knowledge?
For example the germans have linked a PATHOGEN SAFETY DATA SHEET [3]from the Public Health Agency of Canada. We should transfer this invaluable information.
INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates.
SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces, particularly at low temperatures (4°C). When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days.
SOURCES/SPECIMENS: Blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, semen, and organs or their homogenates from human or animal hosts. Human or animal hosts, may represent a further source of infection
PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde. Ebolavirus has also been determined to be moderately sensitive to UVC radiation.
-- 79.201.171.144 ( talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A paramount concern to clinicians is the capacity of Ebola virus to mutate... Nat Geo Yes I know there are more "scientific" RS but this one is solidly secondary and reliable. Wikidgood ( talk) 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
→I think this is a good idea however i am not sure how much literature/research there is on the topic. AMMedStudent ( talk) 01:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ebola virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ëbola is not a good thing if u have ebola call or go to the nearness hospital 190.83.204.31 ( talk) 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done Ebola is not a good thing, but this is not a good edit request either. Please request a specific change. Xqxf ( talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This article was mentioned extremely favorably on CNN, along with the fact that the page was currently protected so that only the most qualified "professionals" can edit it. Chuckle. Alsee ( talk) 02:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Kuhn et al., widely cited in the current article, proposed creating a new subdivision "Virus: Ebola virus" within "Species: Zaire ebolavirus", based around the Zaire ebolavirus type strain. Similar "Virus:" designations were also proposed for the other Ebolaviruses. The
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) explicitly rejected this proposal, on the grounds that "Virus" is not a recognized taxonomic rank they do not officially designate any names below the species level. They continue to recommend that the species "Zaire ebolavirus" be used, and don't assign any formal taxonomic meaning to "Ebola virus". The current lead suggests that "Zaire ebolavirus" is a former name of the entity discussed here, but the ICTV would obviously disagree. Even if Kuhn et al.'s proposal were accepted in full, Zaire ebolavirus still wouldn't be a former rank since the proposal intended to retain the existing species and create a novel "Virus" rank within it.
This creates all sorts of issues with the current article. When we say "Ebola virus" do we mean it as a synonym to " Zaire ebolavirus", as a subdivision within that species (i.e. Kuhn et al.), or in fact as a discussion of the larger class of Ebola viruses (e.g. genus: Ebolavirus)? Right now the article is a gross mixture of all three, conflating information about the larger group, with information about Zaire ebolavirus in particular, alongside information specific to Kuhn et al.'s proposed nomenclature. Dragons flight ( talk) 22:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We spotted some irrelevant comment. If one have a argument please elaborate what part of the information may be improved to perfection.
References
This
edit request to
Ebola virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Although the FDA has not approved any vaccine for use in human trials, the military does not have to follow the FDA protocol. Human testing has already been done as far back as 2003. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
http://investor.tekmirapharm.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=534329 Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-19/news/0311190340_1_vaccine-ebola-virus-immune-system
https://bradleycountynews.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/3-million-ebola-vaccines-have-been-produced-by-crucell-stockpiled-since-2003/ </ref>
68.115.89.29 ( talk) 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ebola virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External link : Ebola : replication - virus mutation of the virus / Interview with Eric Leroy, research director in IRD and director of CIRMF in Gabon Markiw ( talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"Ebola virus is the "single member" of the species Zaire ebolavirus" -- the meaning of this phrase is not clear. Or not clear to the uninitiated. Surely all species are single members. And at the start of the article "Ebola virus" is stated to be the current name of "Zaire ebolavirus". Ankababel ( talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Agnandji, S. T., Huttner, A., Zinser, M. E., Njuguna, P., Dahlke, C., Fernandes, J. F., . . . Siegrist, C. (2016). Phase 1 Trials of rVSV Ebola Vaccine in Africa and Europe. New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med, 374(17), 1647-1660. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1502924 Chan, M. (2014). Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa — No Early End to the Outbreak. New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med, 371(13), 1183-1185. doi:10.1056/nejmp1409859 West African Ebola Epidemic after One Year — Slowing but Not Yet under Control. (2015). New England Journal of Medicine, 372(6), 584-587. doi:10.1056/nejmc1414992 Mablythe ( talk) 02:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed's,
Why are you removing information about the World Health Organization's emergency intervention on August 11, 2014? It was a crucial part of the timeline of the West African Ebola outbreak of 2014.````lgc— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 ( talk • contribs)
This image was one of the winners of the United States branch of the Wiki Science Competition (disclosure: I was on the jury, but have no connection to the images/uploaders). Not sure if there's a place for it in the article, so leaving it here for other editors to decide. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ebola Virus - Electron Micrograph.tiff will be appearing as picture of the day on March 26, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This picture is a colorized scanning electron micrograph of Ebola virus particles (green), visible both as extracellular particles and budding particles from a chronically infected African green monkey kidney cell (blue), at 20,000× magnification. This image was taken in a biosafety level 4 facility, the highest level of biosafety precautions, which is used for easily transmissible agents that cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.Photograph credit: John G. Bernbaum
Hi, I noticed that there were a few missing citations in this article that need to be updated. Specifically, the second paragraph under the "replication" topic needs a citation. Other than that, I felt that this article was very concise and well-organized. Aced 24 ( talk) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mablythe.