Risk of Getting Ebola on a Plane

/11 Comments/in /by

ebola

With Ebola in the United States, I think it is all of our business to understand the risks of the disease should it spread rapidly like it has in Africa. At this point, I don’t believe there is reason for alarm, but education is prudent. We all need to understand the disease so we can take precautions and prevent its spread.

I also don’t believe in causing panic or fear as that will help no one. We need to smart, get educated, pay attention and make sure we know what are up against so we can fight it as a nation should we become unable to contain it, and win.

When I saw this video on CNN, I was frankly appalled. This doctor, Dr. Suzanne Donovan, an infectious disease specialist who treated people in Africa, is as evasive as anyone can be. This doesn’t help calm people’s fears at all. She doesn’t directly answer ANY questions asked of her, but instead she deflects them. She doesn’t lie, but she is not straight forward either, and by this I am troubled. I can’t help but wonder if she is somehow invested in, connected to, or involved with the airline industry by her responses alone.

When the reporter asks Suzanne what if you are flying next to someone who is showing Ebola symptoms, “Any chance you can get it?”  Listen to what Dr. Donovan says.  She says, “This is something that is transmitted with direct contact of body fluids.”

She doesn’t answer the question that if you are exposed to direct contact of a sick person’s body fluids you CAN get it. She stops short. The CNN reporter questions her further.

The reporter says if bodily fluids from a sick passenger next to you gets on the tray or the armrest and you touch it, and touch your nose or mouth, can you get it?

Again Dr. Donovan doesn’t answer the question. She says, “You are bringing up very rare scenarios, and again I would say you are at greater risk driving to the airport and getting in a car accident then being infected with Ebola by being on an airplane.”

Why can’t she tell us the truth?  Yes, you can get it.

Twice now Dr. Donovan avoids answering the question, and instead makes another statement that is related to the question, but is completely different, albeit true. I find this outrageous!!!  This is not helping the public any.  She is technical correct in her statement, but avoids answering the question completely which is very misleading and dangerous!

The reporter says what about the fabric of the plane? What if bodily fluids get on the fabric of the seats, what’s the probability of you getting it?

Again, this woman refuses to answer the question. She says, “It’s very susceptible to cleaning agents.” She then goes on to talk about how washing your hands with soap and water will kill the virus. And that’s true. But if you touch a freshly contaminated surface unknowingly, and rub your eyes before you wash your hands, you are at risk to catch Ebola. Anyone who has done any reading lately should know this.  Who does this woman think she is fooling?

The fact that she doesn’t tell us the true risks involved, even if she says they are rare, is flat out unprofessional.

I find that evasive actions such as Dr. Donovan’s can actually cause more problems than good and are more harmful than helpful. Many people will say “the doctor said” without realizing she didn’t. She didn’t answer any questions that were asked of her. She instead made statements that were connected but different avoiding giving any answers at all!

Today you are absolutely much more likely to get into a car accident on your way to the airport than you are to catch Ebola.  But that doesn’t change the fact that if you sit next to someone who is symptomatic, and has Ebola (which is very rare and unlikely today) that you can catch it. Especially if you are in direct contact with body fluids from that person, and touch your nose, mouth, or eyes unknowingly before you wash your hands. Ebola can live on surfaces for limited times.

This interview stinks to high heaven if you ask me. There was an ulterior motive for doing it, and it wasn’t for the benefit of the public to become educated.

That’s disturbing to me.

Ebola Facts: Getting to the Truth

/2 Comments/in /by

If you are like me, you are bewildered that the Texas nurses that cared for Thomas Eric Duncan are coming forward saying they didn’t have the proper equipment to care for Ebola patients nor did they have any protocols to follow. And if you are like me, you are further scratching your head that news reports are saying the CDC told a nurse she could fly with a temperature after caring for the first patient who died in the U.S. from Ebola.

How could things be going terribly wrong like this? Who is responsible for enforcing things when a situation like this is starting to look out of control?

We can’t just continue to react to news reports with fear. We need to understand what our laws say. Who is responsible?

Last night on CNN, Chris Cuomo said that the CDC does not have authority in this matter. They make recommendations and suggest guidelines. Another commenter pointed out that we need a Surgeon General to take the authority.

The big question is who has the authority to make the decisions at a time like to prevent the spread of the this disease?

I started searching online, and its murky to say the least. As a nation, we live by our constitution and I finally found a breakdown of the authority on the CDC website, and I do believe it is accurate. I think people should read this because there are many people responsible for our well being, and we need to know who they are.

I hope by sharing this I will help people get to the truth more quickly, and stop the spread of inaccurate information so we can get better results. We need to find out who is in control and expect them to do their job.

I am going to turn off comments on this post because I know people will make this a political argument and this website is not about that. It’s about truth and lies, and I just wanted to point people to the correct resource to get to the truth on who is responsible.

Introverts and Extroverts

/25 Comments/in /by

While this column focuses a lot on deception and spotting lies, I am also endlessly interested in human behavior. I do not believe you can be good at spotting liars if you only focus on lies. And so many people make that mistake. If you want to be good at spotting lies–very good–you need to understand the truth, too. And the only way to understand the truth is to understand people at a detailed level. With that, it means understanding all different types of people.

One type of personality that comes to mind is introverts.

Introverts are a very misunderstood segment of our population. We typically think of them as socially-awkward, isolated, shy, loners, and that’s quite an inaccurate perception. Out of all the introverts I see, that description of “shy” aspect actually fits with a very small minority of them. Most introverts are actually smart, engaging and interesting people.

Read this article which details introverts in a way that may change your thinking.

From my experience, introverts are “introverted” because they often see more than the extroverts, and are more easily overwhelmed with the information they process. When you see two people interacting, an introvert will see the pain in the interaction that an extrovert often misses. Dealing with that information can be challenging and often causes information overload. Yet on the positive to extroverts, they seem to push through situations and achieving things when introverts are stifled by emotional overload.  So there are pluses and minuses to both sides!

I feel I can relate to both introverts and extroverts. Neither description fits me, so I feel I am more of an ambivert (a blend of both).  With that, I relate to both sides, though I tend slightly more towards introversion.  Yet I love speaking in front of a large audience (yes, I can say that now after doing it for several years)!  I get exhilarated by the energy of other people in positive situations.

So, which are you?  Take a test here to see. It’s 81 questions — so plan to give it some time. I ironically scored 55 out of 100 — right smack in the middle, as predicted!

By the way, to my loyal reader base, I can tell by watching you for years now that I have many more introverts than extroverts who follow me.  Who knew?

 

Are you a good liar?

/7 Comments/in /by

I found the above video interesting.  It’s Richard Wiseman, a professor of Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire (UK).  You can read more about him here.

“Some people will just see [my work] as fun and say, that’s interesting. I would hope a few people then go slightly beyond that and look at the implications. I want people to find that for themselves.”
—Richard Wiseman

So do you draw a Q for you to see or others?

Do you believe it equates with you being a good liar or not?

Thanks to Brent for sharing this!

Joan Rivers: Unplanned Biopsy Leads to Death?

/16 Comments/in /by

 

Last week I wrote about Joan River’s death and that I was concerned things didn’t seem as they appeared. For those of you who follow me on Facebook, you’ve seen the discussions in a more detailed light. I found it very odd for Joan  at her age to go to care facility outside of a hospital for any procedure that would involve knocking her out. And the fact that she did it raised my eyebrows high as Joan is known as the queen of cosmetic surgery.

To hear the latest news that in the middle of a “supposed” routine endoscopy that her doctor took a biopsy which was considered a no-no by qualified experts in the field because it was outside of a hospital setting strongly hints to me that there was more going on then we’ve been told and may ever be told.

I find it interesting in the earliest reports by people who knew Joan that no one said she went in for a routine endoscopy. No one.

No one would use the word endoscopy which was striking to me!

Even Deborah Norville talked AROUND the word “endoscopy” on 20/20 last week. She couldn’t say it!  She said, “a diagnostic procedure … [to] see why her voice had gotten raspy.”  It sure would have been a lot easier to say “endoscopy,” wouldn’t it?

I scoured the news reports last week when Joan was in the hospital and all of the people who knew her said she was going in for “throat surgery” or “vocal cord surgery”–which cannot be confused with endoscopy. If they thought she went in for a routine endoscopy, they would have said so.

I suspect they knew beforehand what Joan was doing and I suspect Joan knew what she was going to happen as well.

And now to read news reports that say the doctor “discovered”, took a “surprise”, “unplanned” biopsy…well, I’m not buying it.

A doctor doing an endoscopy would tell Joan that it makes no sense to do an endoscopy outside of the hospital setting because with medical protocol  he or she would be unable to take a biopsy should it be needed.  That’s only logical, right?

While Joan may not have signed on the dotted line (which could have happened for many reasons), I don’t think this procedure that was “unplanned” was “unknown” to Joan.  I suspect she had nodules on her vocal cords as many have suspected, wanted them removed at all costs, and was willing to find whoever could do it for her, and she did.  It just sadly cost her her life.

Any other way things simply don’t add up — at least with what we’ve been told so far in the media.

(Sorry about the video and text alignment above. I am unable to fix it. There is a technical glitch that I have been unable to resolve that is causing this).