The Government of Liberia says lab tests result from the first of new Ebola cases – a 17 year old boy – shows no connection to Sierra Leone or Guinea, where cases of the EVD are still being reported. Before the test result, there were assumptions that the 17 year old boy of Margibi County contract the virus because he travelled to Sierra Leone or Gunea.
The 17 year old boy who is now deceased is refer to as the ‘index case’, while the others four confirmed cases came in direct contact with him before getting infected.
When the 17-year-old boy from Nedowein, Margibi County died of the virus, his body swab and blood sample were taken to the lab. Test conducted by the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research (LIBR), the United States Army Medical Research Institutes of Infectious disease (USAMRIDD) and the Liberian Ministry of Health shows that the boy got infected with the Ebola virus in Liberia ruling out any chance that he travelled either to Guinea or Sierra Leone where cases are still being reported.
A Friday, July 10 press release signed by Dr. Francis N. Kateh, Deputy Manager of the Incident Management System of the Ministry of Health says both sequence are identical and are consistent with the cluster representing a continuation of the ongoing outbreak in West Africa contrary to a separate introduction from a reservoir population.
“The sequence groups closely with previous isolates from Liberia and is distinct from the viruses currently circulating in Sierra Leone and Guinea,” the statement said.
The test result refutes speculations that the boy contracted the virus by eating a dead dog meat, which is being widely rumor by many people.
Meanwhile, the United States’ Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Ministry of Health are still investigating the details of the test result to determine how the 17 year old boy got the virus. The Ministry of Health indicates that they are investigating all possible scenarios.
The claim is rigorous and the content is demonstrably true.
The statement is correct, although it needs clarification additional information or context.
Evidence publicly available neither proves nor disproves the claim. More research is needed.
The statement contains correct data, but ignores very important elements or is mixed with incorrect data giving a different, inaccurate or false impression.
The claim is inaccurate according to the best evidence publicly available at this time.
Upon further investigation of the claim, a different conclusion was determined leading to the removal of the initial determination.
A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is somewhat likely to make you leave a discussion or give up on sharing your perspective. Based on algorithmic detection of issues around toxicity, obscenity, threats, insults, and hate speech;