WHO's Bundibugyo outbreak page and May 16 DON say there is no licensed vaccine or specific therapeutic for Bundibugyo virus disease, while CDC's DRC notice tells travelers to avoid nonessential travel to Ituri, Nord-Kivu, and Sud-Kivu and monitor symptoms. [1][2][3]

The scout memo identified a possible online-mainstream gap around bundibugyo still has no approved vaccine, so guidance is the medicine, but no verified same-session status URL is attached; this article keeps that online frame unproved and anchors the source date and traveler instruction in the cited record.

The reader test for bundibugyo still has no approved vaccine, so guidance is the medicine is the source date and traveler instruction: if a later source changes that record, the frame changes; if it only changes the argument around the record, the article should not pretend the evidence moved.

That makes WHO the starting point rather than the whole story, because a brief still owes readers the exact object to revisit when the next update arrives and a plain reminder that the most useful follow-up will change the record, not merely the volume of attention around it, especially when the public argument is moving faster than the source trail.

The empty X stack is a boundary: without a verified status URL for bundibugyo still has no approved vaccine, so guidance is the medicine, the piece does not claim a social-media consensus.

-- KENJI NAKAMURA, Tokyo