Like the flu was after WW1.

But oh yes, there are quacks claiming to "cure" Ebola.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/science/agencies-issue-warnings-over-bogus-ebola-cures.html

So that would explain the high death rate. When a pathogen is new they tend to be deadlier until natural selection occurs in the host population leaving the survivors who were more resistant, who then reproduce and rebuild the population. Think of how the Native Americans were wiped out by TB and measles on initial contact. They had not been exposed to these diseases before and consequently there was huge loss of life. The same is true in Africa where this relatively new disease probably has not given local herbalists and healers the opportunity to learn what helps.

There is also a theory about pathogens themselves co-evolving with their hosts so they don't completely kill off their food supply. It may be that the most virulent forms die off once the disease is controlled.

There are several very good books about the epidemiology of the 1018 flu pandemic that provide parallel stories in this country to what is happening in Africa today. The two I have read are by John Barry and Laurie Garrett (this one is more generalized - not just the flu). Both highly recommended!

my snarky OP doesn't deserve such a thoughtful answer.

(Of course you meant 1918.)

that is very useful. The example that comes to mind is quinine which was used by the incas to combat malaria and is still used as a medicine for it today.

natural remedies that are effective are called medicine.
There is no alternative medicine, it ether proves to be effective or it doesn't.

Duh.

Wait, that's that other thing.

Probably Ukrainian Nazis, then. Or Mossad.