Professor Omoh T. Ojior, Ph.D.Thursday, August 21, 2014




he "Ebola" Virus has been reported to have been around since 1976, a period of about 38 years. Within the period those who "recognized" the virus and the drug companies made no conscious effort to develop any remedy to fight the Virus. It is relatively recent that an experimental drug appeared to have been developed. But it was not tested on human to see how safe it is until two American Missionaries got the disease in Liberia and were rushed back to the US where the "experimental drug" was administered on them. There was the need to ask, why? The answer may lie in the fact that drug companies usually, are not willing to invest their money unless there is the market. In other words, drug companies will invest their money to carry out research for the development and production of a remedy for a new disease. That is when there is a large population to provide the market and the "opportunity" for the drug companies to recover expended funds on research and production of such an experimental drug.

Is it possible to suggest that this could have been one of the reasons the so called "Ebola" Virus was finally reproduced and deployed in West Africa to provide the needed market; to enable the drug companies recoup whatever funds may have been used to develop the current experimental remedy? Of course, profit motive was part of the reasons for the delay in the search, development, and production of medicines to stop such a deadly virus from exploding as it is now doing. It may be, especially that Western-European drug companies will only invest in the production of a drug if millions of the people are available to buy to enable profits to be obtained by the manufacturers of such a drug. There is nothing wrong with making profits from an investment, but why must it be that it is Africa and Africans who must be made to die miserable death to provide for the profits that is always the desire of capitalist's motive?

There are a number of fundamental questions about this virus and how it entered West Africa sub-region of the continent. How does this Virus get the name "Ebola" and why? Every name that is native to Africa has a meaning; what is the meaning of the name, "Ebola?" Ebola sounds like an African name or word in Congolese language. The first place and the first person who suffered from this dreaded disease was in Yambuku province of Northern Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, and this was in 1976, according to one Dr. David L. Heymann. Dr. Heymann did not give the name of the first known person who had the virus. So, one is asking: was the man's name Ebola? There is a need to know why this virus is named Ebola.

According to Dr. Heymann who spoke on National Public Radio (NPR), Sunday, August 17, 2014 with Linda Wertheimer, he said that it was the father of one Missionary medical worker and four missionary nurses that got sick at the Missionary Hospital. The man was treated for Malaria and was let go, but he came back again with nose bleed and was again treated with an injection for Malaria. In Dr. Heymann's words, the problem was that the four needles used on the in-patients who were infected, was the same used to inject the women who came to the hospital for delivery. This was how the virus spread. But the spread of the virus was stopped because all the affected persons died in the hospital and the hospital was shot down, said Dr. Heymann.

One is not asking for the definition of the Virus," which is what is being given to the virus by those who know something about this virus. Also, is this virus native to Africa? Ebola as a name means what in the Northern Congo (formerly Zaire) where the Ebola River situates? Ebola River in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the virus are two different things. Why is the 35 years old virus named "Ebola" which is said to be a name of a local river in Northern Congo in Central Africa "where it was first recognized"? The word "recognized" is used in place of where it was first seen, invented, or discovered. What does "recognized" mean in the context as used by Dr. Heymann? Therefore, who "recognized" the virus, in other words, who invented or discovered this virus? Who gave the name, "Ebola" to the virus and why? Does the Ebola River contains or is it the home of the virus, in other words, is the virus found in the waters of Ebola River? May be, Dr. Haymann may be able to tell the world why this virus is named Ebola because he seems to know something about the beginning of the virus and he was instrumental to the stoppage of the spreading of the virus during its first outbreak. Africans are curious; they need to know.

Africans need to demand answers to the questions being raised in this treatise because it seems that there is more to it than meets the eyes. United Nations (UN) which many African nations are member; UNICEF, and World Health, both organs of the UN, ought to be able to answer these questions. World Health Organization WHO, was aware of the first outbreak Yambuku. According to "The Strecker Memorandum" WHO knew the HIV AIDS Virus before hands and so is the current virus called "Ebola." It appears malaria was imitated in the creation or invention of this Virus called Ebola. One would like to argue that since Malaria was not fast at killing many enough of the Africans, there became a need for the invention of Malaria-like-virus that quickly kills many at a go without any loss of time, hence this deadly Virus called Ebola. The similarity of the symptoms of the so called Ebola Virus and Malaria is suggestive and instructive to warrant the above conceptualized idea as an argument. Malaria has been killing many Africans yearly for a long time, but not with the speed and at the rate with which "Ebola Virus" is destabilizing the sub-region as we speak.

Furthermore, the HIV AIDS Virus came to the scene just as the current virus has entered Africa. At that time, it was Dr. Robert Gallo of the US National Cancer Institute who said that AIDS came about through an African monkey that bit someone. Now, report has it that the Virus, Ebola was contracted through contact with an unknown infected animal, probably a monkey. My question is this: if this virus is a killer of any flesh, how come it did not kill the monkey that was carrying the virus before it bit a human? Was the animal that had the virus a domesticated pet or wild animal that no one knows, and if we do not know the animal, how do we come to know that it was or is an infected animal that transmitted the virus to human that is now killing Africans in their homeland? In my culture, there is a saying that says: A kha mie eme kho ogbhor, a vheghe lo ogbhor, in other words, if we see what looks like witchcraft, we will call it witchcraft. The Ebola episode resembles a premeditated covert plan to depopulate Africa, and contestably, Nigeria and Nigerians were the target while the current afflicted victims in Liberians, Sierra Leoneans, and Guinea are victims of collateral damage, and they are also the vehicles through which the disease was designed to get into Nigeria, just as it has now done.

Most of the questions and what appear as insinuations that this treatise is making can be best understood viewed from the background of some of the happenings that do not appear to be coincidental with Ebola Virus crises in Africa at the moment. On August 12, 2014, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund UNICEF, an organ of the United Nations Organization UNO, in a report states that a "Quarter of global population will be African by the year 2050." The announcement went on to say that "High fertility rates coupled with a rise in the number of women of child-bearing age will see two billion babies born in the region by 2050." The report goes on to states that "Based on current trend," of birth rates, "within 35 years, 25 in 100 people will be African." According to UNICEF's projection or estimate, 40 percent of the world's children aged under five years will come from Africa; "Nigeria, the region's most populous country, will account for 10 percent of global births." The report further states that "Africa's 1.2 billion people will double in size between 2015 and the middle of the century, and reach 4.2 billion by 2100." UNICEF says that Africa's growth rate, population wise, means more overcrowding, and population density. The report states that by late 2030, many Africans will live in cities, but in overcrowded environment, and would cause children to continue to struggle to survive. And on August 14, 2014, UNICEF again announced that "The Future of Humanity is African" The UN organ in the report it released on Wednesday, states that "The future of humanity is increasingly African because more than half of the projected 2.2 billion rise in the world population in 2015-2050 is expected to take place in Africa.

First of all let me say that if these UNICEF's projections as projected are fair and correct, one would need to congratulate Africa and Africans for obeying the decree, "Go ye and multiply." Is there anything wrong with humanity being African? If Africans could survive humanity against all odds; all the covert and overt attempt, to eliminate Africans from the face of the Earth, it is to Africa's credit. After all, Africa is the home of humanity. There is no doubt that Africans would want all of us (humans) to be here on this Earth together as it has always been, but if others refuse to do what would normally help to raise their human population, can Africans really help it? "Never married," an adult of marriage age refused to get married; don't want children: an adult of childbearing age chose to not have children; corporations regard paternal and maternal leave as luxury. Is it really Africans' duty to compel those who wish for self extinction to not go for such idiosyncratic preference?

I do not think that Africans should control birth because the Divine or Nature knows how to ensure balance on this Earth. If anything, Africans should be prudent in the management of their resources which are in abundant within the continent. Imagine, for years, Malaria has been dealing with Africans without any attempt to find a cure; HIV AIDS was introduced, "The Strecker Memorandum is still fresh in our memory; and now it is "Ebola Virus." Is it not surprising that UNICEF should release a report at this time calling on Africa to depopulate? Is there no connection between the ravaging Virus on the African continent and this UNICEF report? Is it possible that because African population would dominate the world hence the deployment of the deadly Virus to assist in reducing or wiping out the people of Africa before the year 2050?

On the lighter mood; in spite of the various random thoughts that pervade this treatise, let me say that nothing cannot give rise to something. Ebola Virus might just be a process of evolution in Africa's healthcare industry. This epidemic might as well be a catalyst that will drive our political leaders to the drawing board with a view to developing healthcare policy for the people of the continent. Nigeria has everything to have a very supportive healthcare industry; as of now it hasn't. Many of the ruler-ships run to overseas for treatment whenever they fall sick. Therefore, this virus should let them see why the Nigerian healthcare should be improved to cater for the good health of the citizens. This not with standing there is absolute need to search for the reason Ebola disease was deployed to African to reduce the population that others envied. ,