Co-Discoverer of Ebola Says That Catholic Nuns’ Unclean Needles Were Responsible For First outbreak

[mr blur]

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

(found at Friendly Atheist, link goes to original source)

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#deedfc; color:#00000 0; margin-left:1em; border:1px dashed #7a7b7d ; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:4px 4px 4px #999999;"] Der Spiegel has an interesting and scary interview with Peter Piot, a medical researcher who was on the team that investigated the world’s first known Ebola outbreak, in 1976, and gave the illness its name.

Piot recalls how Ebola made its first wave of victims. Missionary Catholic nuns spread the disease through a stunning disregard for medical protocol:

“In their hospital they regularly gave pregnant women vitamin injections using unsterilized needles. By doing so, they infected many young women in Yambuku [in the Congo] with the virus… I can still see the Ebola patients in Yambuku, how they died in their shacks and we couldn’t do anything except let them die.”

-snip-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-peter-piot-discoverer-of-the-ebola-virus-a-993111.html

[cbayer]

1. The link leads to a really interesting article, but the way you are presenting it is very deceptive.

Your -snip- doesn't come from the link at all, does it? Where does it come from?

[rug]

5. It's a reprint from the Observer. The Guardian link is below.

None of them has his headline.

Accuracy, integrity, and honesty must not stand in the way of reason and logic.

[cbayer]

6. The block quote is actually from a patheos article by "Terry Firma"

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Can we punish this bad atheist for his deceptive snippery?

We could form a presentation committee and post lists of bad atheists who demean this forum with their deceptive presentations.

Are you with me?

[rug]

2. It must be the nuns!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/ebola-zaire-peter-piot-outbreak

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100?query=featured_homet=articleBackground

Religion poisons everything!

[cbayer]

3. Together we can find a cure!!!

[rug]

4. We'll have an exorcism to cast out the nuns!

Oh, wait . . . .

[cbayer]

7. We could burn them at the stake! They clearly are witches.

[okasha]

12. Strange, isn't it,

that there's a continuing attempt to demonize Catholic women in religious orders---by the very people who claim to be indignant about the Pope's
"misogyny."

[cbayer]

13. Some of the comments at the unlinked site from which this was taken are disgusting.

Here were Belgian women who were providing care in very difficult circumstances. While there have been infectious disease protocols for a long time, they were often not strictly adhered to prior to the AIDS outbreak.

The fact that these women were nuns is completely irrelevant. The first identified case was a nun, which is also completely irrelevant.

[okasha]

14. Those protocols were often not followed

even after the AIDS outbreak, especially in remote areas where the "clinic" was the back of a Jeep equipped with a few standard medications and not much else.

[cbayer]

15. Agree. The point of the person interviewed was merely to note

what was happening in clinics. He exhibits no opinion that links this to religion at all.

But the blocked quote in the OP is from someone who makes remarks which would imply that the nurses thought they could not follow the protocol because they were somehow divinely protected.

[enlightenment]

8. Or, from the Der Spiegel article:

In the end, you discovered that the Belgian nuns had unwittingly spread the virus. How did that happen?

Piot: In their hospital, they regularly gave pregnant women vitamin injections using unsterilized needles. By doing so, they infected many young women in Yambuku with the Ebola virus. We told the nuns about the terrible mistake they had made, but looking back I would say that we were much too careful in our choice of words. Clinics that failed to observe this and other rules of hygiene functioned as catalysts in all additional Ebola outbreaks. They drastically sped up the spread of the virus or made the spread possible in the first place. Even in the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa, hospitals unfortunately played this ignominious role in the beginning

emphasis mine

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-peter-piot-discoverer-of-the-ebola-virus-a-993111.html
Twelfth question into the interview

Whether or not you like the circuitous route the comment made getting here, Dr. Piot did say it, rug.

[rug]

9. Does their status as nuns have any bearing whatsoever on the epidemiology?

Is there a reason this is posted in the Religion Group, as opposed to GD?

Is there a reason to manufacture a headline?

[enlightenment]

10. I'm not going to engage in the weekly spat, rug.

Dr. Piet pointed out that a locus for the spread of the disease was the unhygienic practices of the nursing sisters. You went past criticizing the source of the OP - which was a fair criticism - to suggesting (not stating) that the assertion that the nuns were involved was hyperbolic (your use of derisive "oh noes" type commentary and links to two articles that do not mention the historical origin of the 1980s outbreak and discovery).

I don't know why it was posted here - I was responding to your decision to try and deflect from the facts of the statement in both the Der Spiegel article and the clip that the OP copied from somewhere else. As far as "manufacturing" a headline; people do that every day on DU. The only place where it is required to post the exact headline is in Latest Breaking News.

Bottom line is that Dr. Piet is critical of the nursing sisters. He is also critical of other clinics, both then and now, in spreading the disease.

Had you stopped with criticizing the sourcing of the OP, I wouldn't have opined - but you took the extra step toward denying the validity of the comment in the OP because you were ticked off by the sourcing.

That's all I have to say about it.

[rug]

18. I take your point but it says much more about the medical practices in effect in 1976 than nuns.

I agree with you about the weekly spat. At the same time, I know full well why it was posted here with an engineered headline.

BTW, I'm glad he edited the headline, not that The Friendly Atheist's headline is significantly less misleading. At least he didn't call it Catholic needles.

[cbayer]

16. Thanks for the clarifying edit, but why aren't you providing the link

to the excerpt?

[pinto]

17. My understanding is that incomplete sterilization, re-use of medical equipment

happens at times in regions with poor health care infrastructures and a lack of adequate supplies. It's more a function of poverty, location, training, imo, than religious affiliation.

[cbayer]

20. Agree. This is in a remote area of the Congo.

There may have been an inadequate supply of needles or means to sterilize and reuse. There was most likely a risk/benefit decision made.

The man that is interviewed here never makes any implication that this was related to religion. That just comes from the blogger who wrote the excerpt in the OP (still not linked for unclear reasons).

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. I can't speak for the standard of the time and place, but there was no sterilization to speak of

At the beginning of each day, the nuns at Yambuku Hospital would lay out five hypodermic syringes on a table, and they would use them to give shots to patients all day long. They were using five needles a day to give injections to hundreds of people in the hospital's outpatient and maternity clinics. The nuns and staff occasionally rinsed the needles in a pan of warm water after an injection, to get the blood off the needle, but more often they proceeded from shot to shot without rinsing the needle, moving from arm to arm, mixing blood with blood. Since Ebola virus is highly infective and since as few as five or ten particles of the virus in a blood-borne contact can start an extreme amplification in a new host, there would have been excellent opportunity for the agent to spread.

- Richard Preston, The Hot Zone pg. 99

I understand why they reused the needles; they only had five. What I don't understand is why they didn't at least dip the needles into alcohol between uses. While even this might not have been enough to prevent the outbreak, it doesn't even look like they were making even the slightest effort to conform to even the most rudimentary standard of aseptic technique.

[kestrel91316]

19. This is true. And it apparently played a role as recently as

this West African outbreak, though the nun part wasn't involved.

Sterile, new needles cost money. Third World medical practice often involves their re-use. If you're lucky, they get rinsed and boiled or maybe even autoclaved. But even that doesn't guarantee sterility due to that pesky proteinaceous debris (a word more people should become familiar with).

[cbayer]

21. Exactly. The connection to religion is a complete red herring

being posited by someone with a clear agenda.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Sounds like a lot of posts

about Dawkins.

[okasha]

27. POPE FRAAAAANNNNKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

[Goblinmonger]

34. So are you one of the people that doesn't understand

that Frank is actually the appointed head of a major worldwide religion and Dawkins is just a dude who is the head of nothing atheism related?

[okasha]

37. I recognize the excuses that are made for

Dawkins every time he gnaws on his own foot, as well as the hypocrisy in attacking the Pope for misogyny while demonizing Catholic women religious.

I also recognize that the Pope, regardless of any progressive changes that may occur during and because of his pontificate, will always be the object of virulent hatred by some of your buddies.
(And just wondering--is it an implicit part of your duties as host of A&A to defend even such bigoted nonsense as the original post in this thread? What happens if you don't?)

[rug]

38. Don't ask!

[okasha]

39. I feared as much.

[trotsky]

40. You caught me, okasha.

I don't care much for people who:

1) Oppose marriage equality, and claim it's a plot from Satan.
2) Believe that women should not hold the same power and responsibility as men.
3) Fight reproductive choice not just for the members of their club but everyone else as well.

YMMV.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I have said that Dawkins needs to address his sexism

But he, to me, is nobody. He is no atheist's "leader."

I have also said Frank is a sexist homophobe, too. His policies in the organization he actually is the leader of which actually holds a great deal of power in this world are reprehensible.

That you, of all people, don't see that and rail against it at every possible turn is bewildering.

[okasha]

49. "Rail against it?"

You're imagining things, Goblin.

[Goblinmonger]

50. I'm sure you don't care, but

all this done is let people know that when you are outraged about someone's sexism and bigotry on here, it means nothing. Anyone paying attention to what you say across the board will know that you let pass with the mildest of criticisms those that are the leaders of, and have said, horribly bigoted organizations. Gay marriage is the work of the devil? If you aren't going to call that horrible bigotry against gays, then nothing you say means shit.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

51. So Dawkins isn't so bad because the Pope is wrong?

The Tu Quoque fallacy strikes again.

When talking about Dawkins, the Pope is irrelevant.

Oh, and while Dawkins is not an atheist leader, he is a leading atheist.

[trotsky]

52. Hey, welcome back FA!

Did you enjoy your break?

I agree that Dawkins and the pope aren't comparable at all. Dawkins doesn't lead a global organization. No one thinks his proclamations on moral issues hold more weight than any other human being. No, clearly the pope and his sexism, homophobia, and opposition to reproductive choice are clearly a much bigger problem.

Glad we are in agreement!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

53. Ah, we are in agreement that when talking about Dawkins' sexism

Bringing up the Pope is wholly irrelevant. So then why did you do just that, given that you agree it is irrelevant?

[trotsky]

55. Yes, in total agreement that whatever Dawkins' sexist issues are...

they aren't even close to being as relevant and impactful in people's lives as the pope's.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

56. Are you being deliberately obtuse

Or are you just pretending to be?

My point, to which you claimed to agree, is that in a discussion of DAWKINS' sexism, the failings of the Pope are WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.

[trotsky]

57. Oh, I know exactly what I'm saying. I've missed you so much, FA!

When discussing whatever sexist positions Dawkins has, they are WHOLLY IRRELEVANT compared to the sexism and homophobia exhibited by your pope and his church, and forced upon Catholics and non-Catholics alike. We are in total agreement!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

58. Oh, one should not talk about Dawkins' sexism

Since, according to you, it doesn't matter. Just like when Dawkins said that pedophilia isn't that bad.

We must not say bad things about your hero Dawkins, who is without fault of any sort, according to you. You believe we should only spew insults against the Catholic Church.

I know that I am not supposed to call you a bigot, since I have been told in as many words that calling DU atheists on their bigotry is worse than the bigotry itself. So I won't -- but that is the only reason I won't.

Now, undoubtedly, you or some other atheist will whine that I am calling you names.

[trotsky]

59. Sure we can talk about it.

It's just that compared with the horrible things about your pope and church, it's wholly irrelevant.

Dawkins is just a person. He doesn't lead any organization I give time or money to. I am perplexed by the obsession you and others seem to have with him, for sure, but I understand your need to fixate on him.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

60. You live by the Tu Quoque fallacy, don't you.

When talking about Dawkins, you are only interested in slamming Catholicism. You also believe in the fallacy of the Red Herring. Gosh, two logical fallacies in one short post. That must be close to a record.

How about condemning Dawkins for his sexism? I am perplexed by your inability to find any fault in him.

[trotsky]

61. Actually, it's more like this:

Ebola has killed what, 5 Americans? Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands annually. I think heart disease is a much more serious problem for most of us. Current measures are containing Ebola and protecting most Americans. There's far more we need to do to fight heart disease.

Dawkins, by all accounts, seems to be fairly sexist. I roundly condemn his sexism. Does that make you feel better?

Your pope, by all accounts, seems to be quite sexist and homophobic. As are virtually all of the men in your church's hierarchy. But their beliefs and actions either are affecting, or have the potential to affect billions of people. There's far more we need to do to fight the sexism of your pope and church.

Understand?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

62. In other words,

In a discussion of Dawkins, you insist on the Tu Quoque fallacy. Since, after all, you would rather spew your hatred than do anything else.

This conversation has become weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable. You are now soloing in it.

[trotsky]

63. You don't understand what "Tu Quoque" means, FA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;Latin for "you, too" or "you, also&quot or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it.

This is the reason why I am not engaging in Tu Quoque. I'm not trying to discredit your position ("Richard Dawkins is sexist.&quot In fact, I just agreed with it in my previous post!

No, it is you engaging in Tu Quoque, FA. You believe that by pointing out Richard Dawkins' sexism, you discredit any atheist who points out your church's sexism.

[Goblinmonger]

67. Well, he saw rug use it

so thought he's be cool and use it, too.

[cleanhippie]

71. Or a slip of the sock, perhaps.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Please provide the link for Dawkins saying "pedophilia isn't that bad."

I don't ever remember him saying that.

[trotsky]

68. Well we know how good he is at accurately quoting Dawkins.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143606

[Goblinmonger]

54. No. Let's see if you can follow this.

Is Dawkins sexist? Yeah, seems like he is. He needs to work on that.
Is Dawkins the leader of anything? Nope.
So does Dawkins have any real power? Nope.

Is the Pope sexist? Um, fuck yeah, he is.
Is the Pope leader of anything? I hope you know the answer to that.
So does the Pope have any real power? Yeah he does.

See how the positions of the Pope are uniquely worse? How they have a bigger impact?

[cbayer]

64. While that may be true, it's not really the point.

As someone else said in a thread recently, Dawkins may not be an atheists spokesperson but he is an outspoken atheist.

Does he have power? I think he does. Is it comparable to the pope? Not even close, but is the pope's stance on women the position we wish for outspoken atheists to take?

And if Dawkins has no power, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth when ever he is criticized? I have been told that criticism of Dawkins means criticism of all atheists. Really?

[Goblinmonger]

65. Yes, he is outspoken. And he does deserve criticism when what he says needs criticism.

He really needs to evaluate his understanding of gender issues. And I really think he is smart enough to be able to do that. I assume he actually is, but I have no idea.

But if people in this forum would put the amount of outrage on Pope Francis comparable to the amount of power he has for the really shitty things he has said and the really shitty policies he lets stand in his organization, we would see a whole lot more Pope Francis threads than Dawkins threads. I still contend that if Francis started a DU account and posted the things he has said (gay marriage is from the devil) that he would be kicked out by MIRT before he reached triple digits of posts. Yet so many here hold him up as something we should strive for and talk about the wonderful job he is doing giving what he has to work with (even if I assume he can't change the policies he certainly doesn't need to say the things he has said if he doesn't believe it).

I believe that the indication that criticism of Dawkins means criticism of all atheists comes from headlines like "Does atheism have a woman problem?" Atheism doesn't have a woman problem. Some outspoken atheists do. And, as has been pointed out, if an atheist said "Christianity has a child rape problem" not as a satirical OP but as a real argument, they would be called bigots because they are indicating that a problem of a specific church and it's leadership in covering something up is being placed on all Christianity. It is quite clear to some of us that the poster most frequently posting about atheists (who isn't an atheist, which in-and-of-itself is kind of odd) is doing so as a means to a clear agenda.

And, I wonder why the same people posting about Dawkins and atheism having a sexism problem aren't posting the articles about people like PZ Meyers and other males in that are outspoken atheists that are doing a terrific job fighting the sexism of other outspoken atheists. Well, I don't wonder. It's because they don't fit the agenda. And those same people that have used PZ Meyers as an example of a horrible atheist (I refer to the cracker incident) would now have to say he's actually doing something good.

[cbayer]

69. Clearly he is smart enough.

I think it's an age, class, cultural issue.

People express hope for this pope. That irks some, but expressing hope is not such a bad thing. We shall see if anything actually comes of it, but it doesn't mean that they are sycophants.

As you have pointed out, Dawkins and the pope are not in any way equivalent. However, it should be acceptable to talk about either and to look at both their good and bad points.

Dawkins has done some really great things. His most recent effort in the "coming out" project is outstanding. He has also done some shitty things. The same can be said of the pope.

They are both figureheads to some extent, and trigger the same kind of defensiveness and offensiveness in others.

There is plenty of poking going on from many corners, and there are both positive and negative articles about different belief systems and about atheism.

The issue seems to be that the ones that get the most attention are, not surprisingly, flame bait and not the ones that show the good.

[trotsky]

70. "the ones that get the most attention are, not surprisingly, flame bait"

It's nice to see you being honest about some of the threads you start.

[cbayer]

31. You are going to have to help me out here, because

I just don't see the similarity.

Stories about Dawkins are generally about Dawkins. They are not stories that are about something that he has little to do with that just incidentally mention him ⅔ of the way down as a historical note.

That would truly meet the criteria for flame bait.

This story is not about catholic nuns at all. It is about the ebola virus and how it was spread. The first victim was a nun, but that is not what is highlighted here.

And to present it with an excerpt from a piece and not even link to that piece is rather sketchy.

If the point was to debate what the patheos blogger said about these nuns, that would be one thing. But that is not what happened here.

Again, I just don't see the similarity at all. Certainly you can recognize the difference.

[Goblinmonger]

35. So people aren't posting about Dawkins because of an agenda?

Right.

How many times are we going to get the same OPs about the same things trying to show that sexism is rampant in atheism. Which, of course, it shows no such thing. Sure it shows that some guys are sexist and perhaps there is sexism at conferences. Which mean nothing about atheism as a whole.

It is clear to most that the Dawkins posts are attempts to deflect and to make atheism look bad.

[cbayer]

36. I did not say that posts about Dawkins aren't agenda driven.

I said that I don't think these two things are the same.

There is a problem in the organized atheist community regarding sexism. It is worthy of attention and discussion. Until the problem is resolved I would expect there to be ongoing discussions about it.

It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole. It is specifically about a few individuals who are rather vocal and who some see as spokespeople.

I have no interest in making atheism look bad, despite the meme to the contrary (credit to Dawkins for "meme&quot . I do have an interest in seeing the growing organized atheist community take a different path than religious groups and stamping out sexism and racism and xenophobia within their ranks.

[trotsky]

41. "Stories about Dawkins are generally about Dawkins."

Which explains why they're given titles like "Atheism has a misogyny problem."

[rug]

47. It doesn't explain this twisted headline:

Co-Discoverer of Ebola Says That Catholic Nuns� Unclean Needles Were Responsible For First outbreak

[Leontius]

22. Good I see you moved on from simple hate to murder by Catholics your crusade continues.

[mr blur]

23. Sorry, you'll have to play your games with your friends,

they're waiting over in Ignore. Have fun.

[locks]

24. The Spiegel article is an excellent interview

with a great man who obviously cares deeply about world health and how the virus he discovered is affecting all of us. The reference made to the Catholic nuns who were giving care to the people of Yambuku in no way detracts from the concern and courage of public health caregivers and should have been left out.

[kestrel91316]

26. Catholicism and nuns are irrelevant in what happened. Back then, before Ebola and

certainly before HIV, reusing needles was SOP in a lot of the world.

I'm not Catholic. Heck, I'm agnostic. But even I can smell your intent.

Do you also post stuff about Jews roasting and eating Christian babies? Because this is almost along those lines. There is no justification for putting this in the Religion Group.

[Cartoonist]

28. Just you wait

I agree the spread has more to do with poverty than the religious affiliation of those who were trying to help others, but if Ebola starts to spread here in America, you can bet the religious right will start blaming somebody. (Obama) Look at their reaction to AIDS.

A big FU to the religious right in advance.

[cbayer]

33. I think that is where the attacks on the CDC are coming from.

I very much agree with you here.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. we eat roasted babies over in the atheists and agnostics forum on saturdays.

you're welcome to attend our militant fundamentalist atheist meet-ups, bring your best misogyny game.

[rug]

30. "misogyny game"

And there you have it.

[cbayer]

32. Thank you kestrel, and while I have your attention, thank you ever so much

for your posts about the CDC.

My daughter is an epidemiologist at the CDC and returned 2 days ago from a month long assignment in Nigeria. She is the feet on the ground, and your posts about what the CDC has done in the US are precisely correct.

Thank you for your support. I think a lot of the CDC bashing comes from the repubs and is just another attack on the Obama administration.

Have a wonderful evening.

[Jamastiene]

46. Last I checked, Jews don't actually roast and eat Christian babies.

Those nuns did use unsafe medical practices though.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Of course, it was all a papist plot from the start. How did we miss that?

Your research is impeccable, and your motives and integrity are beyond reproach.
Now, let's go round up the basement boys and burn down a convent or two.

[cbayer]

43. Be very, very careful or he will put you on ignore.

[cleanhippie]

45. Says the one with most of the rugular posters in this group on ignore.