The MedicalXpress report on two isolated patients in Brazil frames a low-probability event as a continental risk, yet overlooks how prior Ebola surveillance relied on observational cohorts rather than RCTs. One case resolved to bacterial meningitis with no Ebola confirmation, while the second tested positive for malaria, patterns consistent with travel-related differentials documented in large observational studies from the 2014-2016 West African epidemic (sample size >20,000 suspected cases, no randomization due to ethics). The Africa CDC and WHO statements cited in the piece draw from passive reporting with unknown denominators, a limitation repeatedly noted in peer-reviewed analyses lacking conflict-of-interest disclosures from national health ministries. Historical data show international exportations remain rare even during peak DRC transmission, underscoring that Brazil's risk assessment rests on robust border protocols rather than novel evidence. No randomized trials exist to quantify aerosol or fomite spread under real-world conditions, leaving policy reliant on observational chains of transmission with sample sizes typically under 500.