This week, Drs. Thomas Frieden and Anthony Fauci, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases respectively, doubled down on their propaganda, illogic and misrepresentations regarding the procedures for handling the Ebola virus and the dynamics of contagion.

On Fox News' "The Kelly File" Tuesday, Frieden gave nebulous assurances that all possible precautions were being taken to combat the spread of Ebola in the U.S., and stated that "we've been treating Ebola for decades."

Yes, they have – but all of this experience has been restricted to the African continent, where conditions are so abysmal that absolute containment has been the norm. This has included quarantines, travel bans, martial law and the burning of entire villages after outbreaks. As far as treatment goes, the only thing anyone has been able to do for Ebola patients to date is to make them as comfortable as possible until they either recover or die.

The exposure to Westerners working in these areas during this decades-long learning curve has also been extremely limited.

The same evening, Dr. Fauci told Fox's Greta Van Susteren that Americans shouldn't worry about terrorists using Ebola as a bioterror weapon because it would be "ineffective" as such. Ebola is classified as a Category A bioterrorism agent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This means that the CDC believes Ebola has the potential to be weaponized for use in biological warfare – so I don't know how Fauci gets off repeatedly making this claim.

TRENDING: Undercover journalist turns the tables, sues Planned Parenthood for defamation

One phenomenon that aroused my suspicions is the extent of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Let me explain.

Dr. Frieden said on Fox that the international medical community had been treating people with Ebola "for decades." Leaving aside his demonstrably fallacious attendant statements, this would tend to suggest that the international medical community would have been able to address the most recent outbreak more effectively, rather than less effectively.

Yet the numbers say otherwise. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the first known outbreak of Ebola was in the early summer of 1976 in Sudan. The outbreak infected nearly 300 people and killed 151. The second occurred in August of 1976 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; this one killed 280 people. Another outbreak occurred in 1995, again in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It sickened 315 and killed 254. An outbreak in Uganda in 2000 killed 224. In 2003 there was another outbreak in the Republic of Congo that killed 128.

In August of 2007, yet another outbreak in the Congo killed 187 individuals; in November of the same year, 37 people died during an outbreak in Uganda. Then, in 2012, several smaller outbreaks in the Congo resulted in the deaths of 50 people.

As one can see, the numbers were trending downward with each of the Ebola outbreaks in later years. This is in keeping with the increased knowledge of how the disease spreads and methods of containment.

In December of 2013, however, the World Health Organization reported the beginnings of the most recent outbreak in Guinea. After the disease spread to the neighboring countries of Liberia and Sierra Leone, the WHO declared the epidemic to be an international public health emergency.

To date, over 8,300 suspected cases and over 4,050 deaths from Ebola have been reported worldwide from this outbreak alone, with the WHO saying that these numbers may be vastly underestimated. The WHO also stated this week that that there could be up to 10,000 new cases a week within two months.

My question then became: Why were only 1,528 people killed by Ebola during the 36 year period between 1976 and 2012, yet over 4,000 have died from Ebola in the last 11 months alone?

At this point, I can only speculate as far as the answer to this question, but I believe it is one every American should be asking, because it suggests that something besides the disease itself is driving this epidemic.

Common sense dictates that since scientists and regulators working for the federal government quite literally wrote the book on Level 4 biocontainment protocols, they know how dangerous Ebola truly is. Thus, their refusal to prudently address the threat leads to one of two conclusions:

1. They have determined that political expedience trumps public health concerns, or

2. They want Ebola to spread in the United States.

Given how manifestly diabolical I know this president and his administration to be, I don't doubt that the latter is a possibility. It certainly would fall within the scope of concerns some analysts have expressed pertaining to various escalating crises in America being orchestrated by the White House in order to ultimately "legitimize" a declaration of martial law in America.

It would also be child's play for a determined group of individuals, terrorists – or even a government – to "help along" an epidemic of such a virulent disease.

In the interest of constructive remediation, I would recommend that Americans vigorously demand proper containment procedures. This would amount to an immediate travel ban from West African nations in which Ebola is now raging, mandatory quarantining of individuals suspected of having been exposed to the virus and the initiation of BSL-4 biocontainment procedures for all personnel interacting with Ebola patients.

Because as it stands now, they had better biocontainment procedures in the movie "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" for a fictional, rubber spaceman than we currently have for Ebola.

Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact [email protected].

