THE World Health Organisation (WHO) says that more than 5,000 people have so far been infected with Ebola. About half have lost their lives. Up to now, no treatment exists for the disease, which only spreads in close contact. The outbreak in West Africa and the threat of its spread globally has caused alarm leading UN officials to describe it as a health crisis “unparalleled in modern times”, and “a threat to global security”. China and Cuba are sending medics to West Africa, while the US government is sending some 3,000 troops to help build treatment centres and train thousands of medical staff. The European Union recently released 140 million Euros in aid, while Kenya donated some one million US dollars to help combat the disease. Rwanda has hinted it may consider offering her support towards tackling the outbreak following a request by the US envoy in Kigali this week. The Ebola threat is real. So, what to make of a curious article that has been doing the rounds on the social media purporting connivance in the West to “test emerging diseases, especially Ebola” on Africans. (Google the article: “Ebola, AIDS Manufactured By Western Pharmaceuticals, US DoD?”) Its main thrust is the claim of “existence of an American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases and improve the health of black Africans overseas.” Even in the face of the global effort to contain the disease, conspiracy theorists have latched on to these claims on social media, and see it as “a form of population control in Africa.” The conspiracy theories would not merit mention here if they were not such utter nonsense – being pedaled as they are being lapped up by uninformed and impressionable minds populating the social media. On what basis would the West want to control Africa’s population? “If the goal is to create a killer disease [to] control population,” as a knowledgeable friend soberly rejoined on Facebook, “why bother with Africa … rather than with countries that have [more than] 50 per cent share?” Asia is home to 60 per cent of global population, of which China and India’s constitute half that population, at around 1.4 billion and 1.3 billion, respectively. Africa’s population stands at around 1.1 billion. The very notion that anybody is out to get Africa with such numbers at play is as unreasonable as it is ill informed. It suggests some inferiority complex on the part of the purveyors of such notions. But my friend made another point: While there may be cases of deliberate and politically inspired spread of microbial disasters, they are very few because of the very real danger that microbes travel and mutate. This means that unless confined in a controlled environment, they could re-infect even those who unleashed them in the first place – a very high risk for very little returns. To come back to reality, a separate strain of the disease has appeared in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). And, note that DRC’s along with health systems of the three worst-affected countries – Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia – are among the weakest in the world and can’t deal with such an outbreak alone, thus the global effort in which the WHO is taking the lead. WHO is hopeful that a vaccine could be available by November, should results from safety trials for two prototype vaccines prove effective. Tests carried out on animals have shown promising results. In the meantime, it’s good that African leaders attending the recent Unesco-Equatorial Guinea International Award for Research in Life Sciences presentation in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, discussed ways of mobilising resources to contain the threat of Ebola in Africa. The writer is a commentator on local and regional issues
