Mathematics of the Ebola outbreak reveal near-impossibility of global containment: it’s already too late

In a piece entitled “The ominous math of the Ebola epidemic,” the Washington Post has published an article that everyone should study. The article explores the undeniable mathematical reality of an Ebola outbreak which is doubling its reach every 3-4 weeks.

Current analysis shows that Ebola infects 1.5 – 2.0 new people for every new infection, and the cycle time on this is less than 30 days. This means that the number of people infected with Ebola is growing by roughly 150% – 200% every month.

If you nearly double something every month, it doesn’t take long for it to explode out of control. Imagine having a bank account that started in January with just $1,000 and magically doubled every month. In February, you’d have $2,000; in March you’d have $4,000 and so on. By December, you would have over $2 million sitting in the bank.

Ebola spreads in much the same way: exponentially. It isn’t a simple linear increase; it’s an exponential explosion that can grow from a small number of isolated patients to a global pandemic seemingly overnight.

Here’s a thumbnail version of the stunning infographic from the Washington Post. Click here to see the original.

Halting exponential growth requires extraordinary effort

In order to stop something that’s growing exponentially, you have to “get ahead of the curve” by responding with overwhelming numbers of doctors, nurses, treatment beds and isolation actions. Right now, the world is woefully behind the curve, responding with only a fraction of the number of health workers needed to have any realistic chance of containing the outbreak.

Even worse, the U.S. government has failed the public on many fronts and actually seems to be actively encouraging the spread of Ebola:

• Flights from Ebola outbreak countries have not been halted to the USA.

• The U.S. southern border has not been controlled or contained.

• Ebola patients are allowed to be treated in regular hospitals (Dallas) where the medical gear and training is woefully inadequate.

• The CDC continues to misinform the public about Ebola transmission vectors, ridiculously claiming it can only be spread via “direct contact” when we now know the claim is false.

• Instead of supporting immune-boosting natural solutions, the government has gone out of its way to threaten makers of natural products like colloidal silver and essential oils, silencing them from speaking about Ebola prevention strategies that might substantially help halt the spread.

• Instead of being told to prepare for a possible pandemic outbreak leading to “shelter at home” orders, the American public is lied to and told, “Everything is under control” when it clearly isn’t. The “don’t panic” mantra repeated by government is actually code for “don’t prepare.” (Learn real pandemic preparedness strategies for free at with downloadable MP3 audio files.)

If you put all these together, you have a scenario that actually encourages the spread of Ebola rather than halting it. Such a lackluster response to a viral pandemic outbreak that’s exponentially multiplying is beyond foolish… it is negligent.

Is it already too late to contain?

According to this excellent Washington Post infographic, every one infection of Ebola happening right now is leading to nearly two additional infections.

The total number of Ebola infections is doubling every 3-4 weeks. In order to effectively halt the pandemic, “70% of infected people need to be in treatment centers within 60 days,” WashPost reports. But presently, only 18% of infected people are in treatment centers, and as the total number of infections grows, that percentage actually gets worse.

In one month, between 45,000 and 50,000 treatment beds will be needed in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia, but even the U.S. Army effort involving 3,000 troops building medical facilities will only add 1,700 beds to the equation… and those beds won’t be ready for another month. Government efforts, in other words, are already way behind the curve.

Unless there is some new dramatic intervention that radically halts Ebola transmission, the mathematics of the current outbreak are undeniable. We are already too late to contain it. And now the question becomes one of regional isolation: Can Ebola be kept out of the Americas? If not, then runaway outbreaks in South America will sooner or later spill over into North America.

U.S. health authorities, who have already blundered the handling of the very first Ebola patient in a hospital (Thomas Duncan in Dallas), will then have to deal with dozens or hundreds of Ebola carriers stampeding across the wide-open southern border of states like Texas, Arizona and California. How exactly is Ebola supposed to be stopped if that scenario unfolds?

Nobody has any real answer. Instead, government health authorities are repeating the mindless, irrational mantra of “Don’t panic. We have everything under control.”

Sure they do. That’s why Ebola keeps spreading.

Sources for this story include:


Learn more:

Shock W.H.O. report: Ebola has 42-day incubation period, not 21 days!

A jaw-dropping report released by the World Health Organization on October 14, 2014 reveals that 1 in 20 Ebola infections has an incubation period longer than the 21 days which has been repeatedly claimed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

This may be the single most important — and blatantly honest — research report released by any official body since the beginning of the Ebola outbreak. The WHO’s “Ebola situation assessment” report, found here, explains that only 95% of Ebola infections experience incubation within the widely-reported 21-day period. Here’s the actual language from the report:

95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval. [1]

Unless the sentence structure is somehow misleading, this passage appears to indicate the following:

• 95% of Ebola incubations occur from 1 – 21 days
• 3% of Ebola incubations occur from 21 – 42 days
• 2% of Ebola incubations are not explained (why?)

If this interpretation of the WHO’s statistics are correct, it would mean that:

• 1 in 20 Ebola infections may result in incubations lasting significantly longer than 21 days

• The 21-day quarantine currently being enforced by the CDC is entirely insufficient to halt an outbreak

• People who are released from observation or self-quarantine after 21 days may still become full-blown Ebola patients in the subsequent three weeks, even if they have shown no symptoms of infection during the first 21 days. (Yes, read that again…)

Any declaration that an outbreak is over requires 42 days with no new infections

Underscoring the importance of the 42-day rule, the WHO document openly states that a 42-day observation period with no new outbreaks is required before declaring the outbreak is under control. In the WHO’s own words:

WHO is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over. [1]

W.H.O. “alarmed” over false pronouncements of negative Ebola tests

Just as disturbing is the WHO’s open warning that government health officials who are announcing negative Ebola findings in patients mere hours after them being tested are grossly misleading the public and essentially practicing quack medicine.

As explained by the WHO:

WHO is alarmed by media reports of suspected Ebola cases imported into new countries that are said, by government officials or ministries of health, to be discarded as “negative” within hours after the suspected case enters the country. Such rapid determination of infection status is impossible, casting grave doubts on some of the official information that is being communicated to the public and the media. [1]

In other words, WHO is telling us that all those public pronouncements by government health authorities are meaningless. An Ebola infection determination cannot be made in mere hours, it turns out. In fact, as WHO explains, a suspected case of Ebola must be observed and tested for 48 hours before any degree of certainty can be reached about the Ebola infection status:

Two negative RT-PCR test results, at least 48 hours apart, are required for a clinically asymptomatic patient to be discharged from hospital, or for a suspected Ebola case to be discarded as testing negative for the virus. [1]

“No signs” that outbreaks are under control

Finally, this WHO report goes on to conclude that the Ebola outbreaks of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone are multiplying out of control. The report even cites the curious phenomenon of unexpected outbreak surges taking place in areas once thought to be eradicated:

In Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, new cases continue to explode in areas that looked like they were coming under control. An unusual characteristic of this epidemic is a persistent cyclical pattern of gradual dips in the number of new cases, followed by sudden flare-ups. WHO epidemiologists see no signs that the outbreaks in any of these 3 countries are coming under control. [1]

Is it possible that these resurging outbreaks are being caused by governments failing to monitor potentially infected Ebola victims for a full 42 days? If they only observe them for 21 days, then 1 out of 20 infected victims may be cleared as “clean” and allowed back into the population where they soon become symptomatic and spread the disease even further.

U.S. doctors and health officials have been taught the wrong number: 21 days is only HALF the duration

It is extremely disturbing to realize that, to our best knowledge, every single person in the United States who has been suspected of harboring Ebola has been instructed to monitor symptoms for only 21 days, not the necessary 42 days.

This means that Ebola-infected U.S. citizens who are “cleared” of Ebola may still erupt with the deadly virus for a period of three more weeks.

Why hasn’t anyone reported this until now? How is this not one of the single most important pieces of information in the world at this moment when all human life on our planet is now legitimately threatened by an uncontrolled viral outbreak with a 70 percent fatality rate and no recognized treatments or cures?

Prepare yourself now with the free downloadable MP3 audio files at

Sources for this article include:

Stem Cells Allow Nearly Blind Patients to See .

Embryonic stem cells can be turned into a therapy to help the sight of the nearly blind

In a report published in the journal Lancet, scientists led by Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology, provide the first evidence that stem cells from human embryos can be a safe and effective source of therapies for two types of eye diseases—age-related macular degeneration, the most common cause of vision loss in people over age 60, and Stargardt’s macular dystrophy, a rarer, inherited condition that can leave patients legally blind and only able to sense hand motions.

The transplants of RPE cells were injected directly into the space in front of the retina of each patient’s most damaged eye. The new RPE cells can’t force the formation of new nerve cells, but they can help the ones that are still there to keep functioning and doing their job to process light and help the patient to see. “Only one RPE can maintain the health of a thousand photoreceptors,” says Lanza.

The trial is the only one approved by the Food and Drug Administration involving human embryonic stem cells as a treatment. (Another, the first to gain the agency’s approval, involved using human embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury, but was stopped by the company.) Because the stem cells come from unrelated donors, and because they can grow into any of the body’s many cells types, experts have been concerned about their risks, including the possibility of tumors and immune rejection.

But Lanza says the retinal space in the eye is the ideal place to test such cells, since the body’s immune cells don’t enter this space. Even so, just to be safe, the patients were all given drugs to suppress their immune system for one week before the transplant and for 12 weeks following the surgery.

While the trial was only supposed to evaluate the safety of the therapy, it also provided valuable information about the technology’s potential effectiveness. The patients have been followed for more than three years, and half of the 18 were able to read three more lines on the eye chart. That translated to critical improvements in their daily lives as well—some were able to read their watch and use computers again.

“Our goal was to prevent further progression of the disease, not reverse it and see visual improvement,” says Lanza. “But seeing the improvement in vision was frosting on the cake.”