Ebola research paper says asymptomatic, replicative Ebola happens.

[boomer55]

Does the below study mean that people can be infected with Ebola and not show symptoms?

If so does that mean they are contagious with no symptoms?


Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Highlights

Blood was collected from 24 close contacts of symptomatic patients. These asymptomatic individuals were sampled 2, 3, or 4 times during a 1-month period after the first exposure to symptomatic patients.


11 of 24 asymptomatic individuals developed both IgM and IgG responses to Ebola antigens, indicating viral infection.


This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings.

[boomer55]

2. Been here a long time. Why?

[pnwmom]

3. Nice attitude.

[snooper2]

4. Thanks!

I always get curious with one-topic posters

[pnwmom]

6. S/he started posting way before Ebola became a topic around here.

Here's an example from 2012.

But lately, s/he's been posting about Ebola. So what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022050237

[sharp_stick]

5. No not infected

an asymptomatic response would indicate that the body was able to destroy the pathogen before symptoms took hold.

Unfortunately not much has come of this, the idea being that some people might be superresponders and better able to fight off an infection.

[pnwmom]

7. Semen can carry the virus for weeks after a person recovers from Ebola. How do you know it can't

carry the virus in asymptomatic people?

Typhoid Mary infected people without ever getting the disease. She didn't destroy the pathogen. She simply didn't get sick herself.

[pnwmom]

9. Thanks. I meant it can carry the virus. Now it's fixed.

[sharp_stick]

11. Sorry I wasn't as clear as

I should have been. Theoretically it is possible but it's not likely.

These people weren't "carriers" they cleared their infections.

The individuals in this study and others following up, never showed any viral RNA following the outbreak and despite seroconverting never showed any of the circulating viral proteins seen in an active infection.

The seven people here had cared for infected family members. They themselves became infected and the virus started to replicate but never had a chance to really get going before a really good immune response knocked it out. They were only able to find evidence of the virus in the asymptomatic individuals monocytes and only in very small amounts.

A later study showed that in the original 7 individuals the RNA never seemed to leave the monocyte cell type. The theory was that these folks responded quickly and strongly to the infection, small numbers of the virus were able to avoid the initial inflammatory response by invading the monocyte but eventually cell specific immune responses cleared the virus all together.

Later Ebola epidemics also showed a small percentage of people with a really robust early inflammatory response followed by a measured immune response to clear the virus and those confirmed that first study.

Sorry again, for getting wordy this time, to make a long story short(er)

"Although there is evidence of asymptomatic carriers, the very low levels of virus detected in these individuals suggest they do not pose a significant source of transmission."
Understanding the dynamics of Ebola epidemics.. Epidemiol Infect. May 2007; 135(4): 610–621.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. All ebola infection starts out as asymptomatic.

It takes a large enough viral load for noticeable symptoms to arise. If your body manages to fight it off before you get to that point, you'll never show symptoms, but part of that 'fighting off' process is the development of the responses noted. Until someone shows transmission from a non-symptomatic person to someone who becomes symptomatic, I'm not going to lose sleep over the possibility. So far, we only know of people having enough of a viral load to become contagious after the point at which they become symptomatic.