Talk:Reston virus/Archive 1

IS EBOLA RESTON INFECTION IMMUNIZING FOR EBOLA ZAIRE?

Am I the only one in the world who is interested in the question of whether infection by the Ebola/Reston virus gives some sort of immunity for Ebola/Zaire? (For humans). From the moment I read the book, The Hot Zone, in the early 1990's, I wondered about that. Does everybody else simply find that concept boring and not worth learning about? The first vaccinations, by Edward Jenner, in the late 1700's, used 'cowpox' to immunize against smallpox. It's a worthy question. It's at least as worthy question why so many people seem so un-interested in the answer to that question. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Today (September 2014) there must be avid interest in the question among medical circles.

More interest (orders of magnitude?) than for this scintillating IPA treatment of a non-difficult word: Reston virus is pronounced ‘rɛstən vɑɪrəs (IPA) or res-tuhn vahy-ruhs in English phonetic notation. 84.227.241.146 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Airborne Variant Exists??

Refered paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC502829/pdf/jclinpath00400-0025.pdf) does not say that "This bug could be transmitted through the air via tiny droplets similar to the way the flu virus is spread". In fact the paper doesn't event mention the words 'air' nor 'droplet'.

I'm not a biologist so I may don't understand what article says but it seems that is not talking about spread by air.

Giving the current importance of Ebola and the social alarm this can cause I'm going to delete this section now. Also I've seen this text in all Ebola articles and Wikipedia can't be a copy-paset of its own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaSz (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're an idiot, don't delete common knowledge on a subject you don't know about for political reasons just because you're too lazy to do a five second Google scholar search. Yes, reston is airborne:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-7091-7482-1_11

Now somebody revert that back please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.66.97.140 (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

put it back, though someone should really make that section less dramatic and more encyclopedic.