The released Ebola nurse works for the CDC and her lawyer has been a White House guest. That explains a lot.
We might also ask if she got a blood transfusion, because those who have received blood transfusions from prior Ebola patients who survived have done better than those who did not receive transfusions. We might ask that about CDC officials and government employees as well. In addition, without that information, her story could be an even more deceptive one, because to the unsuspecting readers, who may not know about blood transfusions, may think that she was a typical patient when she was atypical.
It is the old story of are you comparing “apples with apples” or “apples with oranges”.
In the cases and stories that are surfacing, are we comparing people who received blood transfusions with people who did not, but not being told that by the CDC or the administration?
Part of the truth is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…nothing hidden, nothing held back or phrased in a deceptive way…do we believe we have that from the CDC and the White House? Are definitions defined and do they stay standard from case to case?
The problem of artificial intelligence (robots) running away from its creators and “doing its own thing” is a real one.
Those who are closest to this issue feel we should “legislate early and often” to prevent it from turning into some kind of monster that wars against humanity.