Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Super-bugs go off with a Big Bang

dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:53:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A (rather senior) medical researcher from Perth has created a new synthetic anti-biotic which is now undergoing trials in the USA. It works by puncturing or dissolving the cell wall of a microbe and then it literally explodes from the internal pressure. So far it has shown promise and the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.

http://www.watoday.com.au...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:14:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!

Lol. You're probably right. Let me amend that. "So far the bacteria can't seem to combat it by mutating". The researcher is confident that they won't but life has a habit of finding a way. Where have I heard that before? Jurassic Park?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 11:22:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:14:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!

Lol. You're probably right. Let me amend that. "So far the bacteria can't seem to combat it by mutating". The researcher is confident that they won't but life has a habit of finding a way. Where have I heard that before? Jurassic Park?

Life finds a way..............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 12:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.recce.com.au...

Even their official press release is frustratingly short on detail presumably to protect their profits, which are estimated at potentially $40 billion. Might be worth buying some shares on the ASX.

This medicine could save 750,000 lives every year but that will depend on the price they charge for it. Interestingly they admit that the manufacturing process is very economic so maybe it will be available to everyone who needs it.

No use against tuberculosis or leprosy though.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 1:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:14:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!

Lol. You're probably right. Let me amend that. "So far the bacteria can't seem to combat it by mutating". The researcher is confident that they won't but life has a habit of finding a way. Where have I heard that before? Jurassic Park?

Yeah it was definitely Jurassic Park. Just watched it the other day, love that movie. I've always had a major problem with that statement though. Life doesn't always find a way. The 99% extinction rate of all species that ever lived is proof of that. Life more often dies out than finds a way.

They play up the role of life "finding a way" in Jurassic park, but if you pay close attention in the movie you'll discover that the primary causes of the disaster were a combination of poor technical design of the park combined with both a hurricane, and an act of sabotage by the most key individual in the system.

Had the old fella "spared no expense" on a qualified design and operations team instead of gimmicky crap like self-driving jeeps, then the park likely would have been a success. Its really a case study in engineering ethics more than anything. Sorry to go off topic here, but I was just thinking about this the other day so I had to take the opportunity when it presented itself.

But this is awesome about a new way to combat bacteria. This could potentially revolutionize the way we treat disease.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:09:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:14:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!

Lol. You're probably right. Let me amend that. "So far the bacteria can't seem to combat it by mutating". The researcher is confident that they won't but life has a habit of finding a way. Where have I heard that before? Jurassic Park?

Yeah, Jurassic Park is fiction. I think the researchers were probably right the first time: There are variations that can occur, and one's that can't. Everybody knows this instinctively when they're not in Darwinian storytelling mode.
This space for rent.
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 2:33:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 1:53:18 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/8/2015 2:14:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:11:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
the bonus is that bacteria can't combat it by mutating.
We'll have to see about that.... I'd bet on the bacteria. Evolution rules, OK!

Lol. You're probably right. Let me amend that. "So far the bacteria can't seem to combat it by mutating". The researcher is confident that they won't but life has a habit of finding a way. Where have I heard that before? Jurassic Park?

Yeah it was definitely Jurassic Park. Just watched it the other day, love that movie. I've always had a major problem with that statement though. Life doesn't always find a way. The 99% extinction rate of all species that ever lived is proof of that. Life more often dies out than finds a way.

They play up the role of life "finding a way" in Jurassic park, but if you pay close attention in the movie you'll discover that the primary causes of the disaster were a combination of poor technical design of the park combined with both a hurricane, and an act of sabotage by the most key individual in the system.

I think (from memory) that the "life finds a way" reference was in relation to the dinosaurs being created with only one sex and yet they found a way to reproduce by some of them spontaneously changing sex. A bit of a stretch in my view, although there are some animals which can do that.

Had the old fella "spared no expense" on a qualified design and operations team instead of gimmicky crap like self-driving jeeps, then the park likely would have been a success. Its really a case study in engineering ethics more than anything. Sorry to go off topic here, but I was just thinking about this the other day so I had to take the opportunity when it presented itself.

I consider Chrichton a bit of a hack as a science-fiction writer. His recurring theme is about new technology going wrong but the scenarios he creates are bizarre and far-fetched. The role of the mathematician in JP played by Jeff Goldblum where chaos theory is injected into the picture is jarring and frankly absurd. I agree with you. These sort of things could be managed and would be managed if the dinosaur resurrection technology were feasible. The chain of failures (human and otherwise) depicted in the film defies credibility. Everything that could go wrong went wrong.

But this is awesome about a new way to combat bacteria. This could potentially revolutionize the way we treat disease.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 11:57:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Germs are the result of a disease, they are not the cause of it" Antoine Bechamp

Super bugs are produced by poor diet and unsanitary habits. If you eat crap you get sick.
If you destroy the immune system with halogen chemicals, then you get so called super bugs. Anaesthetic drugs contain halogens which destroy the immune system. Thus, hospitals create their own super bugs. Antibiotics kill all gut bacteria which leaves people vulnerable to indigestion and starvation.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 2:21:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 11:57:48 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
"Germs are the result of a disease, they are not the cause of it" Antoine Bechamp
Antibiotics kill all gut bacteria which leaves people vulnerable to indigestion and starvation.

Although this is not percisely what happens--antibiotics don't kill all gut bacteria, only some, and its effects aren't as extreme as you claim them to be--antibiotics can still negatively affect one's gut microbiome; they reduce your gut microbiome's diversity by killing certain bacteria but not others, and over time only some bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, while other bacteria get killed off permanently. This has caused some people to get C. difficile infections, since C. diff has developed antibiotic resistance. Scientists found that if a variety of healthy germs were reintroduced into the gut microbiomes of people with C. diff infestations through fecal transplants, their symptoms were resolved as their gut microbiomes became more diverse.

And no, bacteria aren't caused by disease. All mainstream, peer reviewed scientific literature since a century ago have pointed towards germ theory being true.
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:24:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 2:21:35 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

And no, bacteria aren't caused by disease. All mainstream, peer reviewed scientific literature since a century ago have pointed towards germ theory being true.

Where do bacteria come from?

http://www.mednat.org...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:42:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:24:09 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/18/2015 2:21:35 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

And no, bacteria aren't caused by disease. All mainstream, peer reviewed scientific literature since a century ago have pointed towards germ theory being true.

Where do bacteria come from?

http://www.mednat.org...

That's not a reliable source. The College of Homeopathy supports (duh) homeopathy, a system of alternative medicine at odds with conventional, evidence-based medicine. Of course they're going to deny the germ theory of disease.

I know that this is only tangentially related to the topic, but homeopathy doesn't work. A meta-study published in the Lancet, a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, concluded that Homeopathy's positive effects are caused by the placebo effect. (1) Another metastudy, this time by a trained homeopath, concluded that homeopathy just doesn't work. (2)

Now, let's get back to talking about the germ theory of disease. Your source states that bacteria is what removes dead cells from the body after disease. Actually, macrophages are what actually do that.

If the germ theory of disease is untrue, then antibiotics won't have a purpose, and would not be effective for treating anything. This is not what we see. Penicillin can cure strep throat by killing streptococci, and its effects are stronger than placebo, unlike the effects of homeopathy. (Randolph et al, 1985)

References

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

MF, Randolf, Gerber MA, DeMeo KK, and Wright L. Effect of Antibiotic Therapy on the Clinical Course of Streptococcal Pharyngitis. Rep. N.p.: Junior Pediatric, 1985. Web. 17 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:52:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:42:12 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

That's not a reliable source. The College of Homeopathy supports (duh) homeopathy, a system of alternative medicine at odds with conventional, evidence-based medicine. Of course they're going to deny the germ theory of disease.

I know that this is only tangentially related to the topic, but homeopathy doesn't work. A meta-study published in the Lancet, a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, concluded that Homeopathy's positive effects are caused by the placebo effect. (1) Another metastudy, this time by a trained homeopath, concluded that homeopathy just doesn't work. (2)

Now, let's get back to talking about the germ theory of disease. Your source states that bacteria is what removes dead cells from the body after disease. Actually, macrophages are what actually do that.

If the germ theory of disease is untrue, then antibiotics won't have a purpose, and would not be effective for treating anything. This is not what we see. Penicillin can cure strep throat by killing streptococci, and its effects are stronger than placebo, unlike the effects of homeopathy. (Randolph et al, 1985)

References

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

MF, Randolf, Gerber MA, DeMeo KK, and Wright L. Effect of Antibiotic Therapy on the Clinical Course of Streptococcal Pharyngitis. Rep. N.p.: Junior Pediatric, 1985. Web. 17 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

That's not a reliable source.

The pharmacy industry has a self interest in maintaining germ theory because most of their medicines are based on germ theory. Thus, their research will be biased and they will inevitably find homoeopathic medicine to be ineffective.

The big conspiracy is that the modern diet causes most ill health and disease.

Disease itself is unnatural, and doesn't occur by itself in nature.

It is only mankind and his meddling with nature that has caused disease to occur in the first place.

Grain, sugar and dairy products cause 99 percent of all human health problems.

If you avoid these products and eat a palaeolithic diet you wont get any disease, sickness, tooth decay, flu, allergic reactions, colds , nervous system disorders or cancer.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:52:03 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/18/2015 5:42:12 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

That's not a reliable source. The College of Homeopathy supports (duh) homeopathy, a system of alternative medicine at odds with conventional, evidence-based medicine. Of course they're going to deny the germ theory of disease.

I know that this is only tangentially related to the topic, but homeopathy doesn't work. A meta-study published in the Lancet, a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, concluded that Homeopathy's positive effects are caused by the placebo effect. (1) Another metastudy, this time by a trained homeopath, concluded that homeopathy just doesn't work. (2)

Now, let's get back to talking about the germ theory of disease. Your source states that bacteria is what removes dead cells from the body after disease. Actually, macrophages are what actually do that.

If the germ theory of disease is untrue, then antibiotics won't have a purpose, and would not be effective for treating anything. This is not what we see. Penicillin can cure strep throat by killing streptococci, and its effects are stronger than placebo, unlike the effects of homeopathy. (Randolph et al, 1985)

References

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

MF, Randolf, Gerber MA, DeMeo KK, and Wright L. Effect of Antibiotic Therapy on the Clinical Course of Streptococcal Pharyngitis. Rep. N.p.: Junior Pediatric, 1985. Web. 17 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

That's not a reliable source.

The pharmacy industry has a self interest in maintaining germ theory because most of their medicines are based on germ theory. Thus, their research will be biased and they will inevitably find homoeopathic medicine to be ineffective.

Conspiracy theories are a staple of pseudo-science, and you are not exempt. It is impossible to disprove the claim that the pharmaceutical industry is covering up their products' inefficacy just for money, since any evidence to the contrary of said claim could be explained away as just a part of the conspiracy.

I propose a counter-theory: the big homeopathy industry is covering up their products' inefficacy, and any evidence you bring up against me must have been created by THEM.

It doesn't take a "Big Pharma" conspiracy to disprove homeopathy. Homeopathy's basic principle is wrong. Samuel Hahnemann's original observation--that cinchona caused fevers in healthy people--was wrong. The massive dilutions homeopathy uses means that most homeopathic remedies to contain not a single molecule of the so-called active substance.(3)


The big conspiracy is that the modern diet causes most ill health and disease.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?


Disease itself is unnatural, and doesn't occur by itself in nature.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?


It is only mankind and his meddling with nature that has caused disease to occur in the first place.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?


Grain, sugar and dairy products cause 99 percent of all human health problems.


Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?

If you avoid these products and eat a palaeolithic diet you wont get any disease, sickness, tooth decay, flu, allergic reactions, colds , nervous system disorders or cancer.

In contradiction to scientific evidence, you claimed that paleolithic people did not eat grains. However, that idea appears to be incorrect, according to recent literature.(1)(2)

I'll address the points about sugar and dairy products once you bring forth more evidence.

Also, congrats for making up a conspiracy theory. For that, I reward you a song!

(1)http://www.pnas.org...
(2)http://www.jstor.org...
(3)http://www.quackwatch.org...
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 3:30:53 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:


It doesn't take a "Big Pharma" conspiracy to disprove homeopathy. Homeopathy's basic principle is wrong. Samuel Hahnemann's original observation--that cinchona caused fevers in healthy people--was wrong. The massive dilutions homeopathy uses means that most homeopathic remedies to contain not a single molecule of the so-called active substance.(3)

I have never stated that I support homoeopathy principles. I just used their site to give evidence. I don't believe in any medicines, whether they are allopathic or naturopathic.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?

There wont be any peer reviewed evidence for my claims because you can't make any money out of true health practices. But, you can test it for yourself. If you go on a strict palaeolithic diet, I guarantee that you wont get sick, have any allergies or have any headaches etc.

The evidence is in nature. If you observe nature in is purest form, you will notice that disease does not occur. Disease is a man made phenomenon.

Palaeolithic man may have eaten a small amount of grain, but not in the highly refined and processed variety that is made now. The more refined a food is, the less healthy it is - (a general rule of good health.)
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 12:17:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

The evidence is in nature. If you observe nature in is purest form, you will notice that disease does not occur. Disease is a man made phenomenon.

You're a troll but I can't let this absurdity go uncontested.

http://www.tassiedevil.com.au...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 1:41:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 12:17:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

The evidence is in nature. If you observe nature in is purest form, you will notice that disease does not occur. Disease is a man made phenomenon.

You're a troll but I can't let this absurdity go uncontested.

http://www.tassiedevil.com.au...

http://theconversation.com...
Look to the trees.
In Tasmania, huge areas are taken up by plantation forests, and these are regularly sprayed with pesticides and poisons.

Of special concern is the pesticide atrazine, used to control grass and broadleaf weeds. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority carried out an extensive review and considers atrazine safe to use under current guidelines which include "conditions outlined on product labels". The Tasmanian government"s information on atrazine says it "does not cause mutations" and is "not likely to cause cancer".

But there are those who point to research that suggests atrazine is a cancer promoter. The US Environmental Protection Agency had this to say following its review of studies by a federal Scientific Advisory Panel:

Even though the panel agreed with EPA that the epidemiologic evidence does not strongly suggest a link between atrazine and cancer, the panel did not agree that a lack of strong evidence justifies a conclusion that atrazine is not likely to be a human carcinogen.
Also of concern is the poison 1080, used to kill native species that are a key part of the devil diet. The Tasmanian government says devils have a relatively high tolerance to the poison but it also concedes there is a risk of secondary poisoning with three poisoned pademelons likely to be fatal to a 5kg devil.

Plantation forestry pesticides contaminate 44 of 48 river catchments in Tasmania.

So a role for pesticides and poisons seems plausible, because the devil disease is found only in parts of Tasmania where there are extensive forest plantations. Furthermore, because devils, as carnivores, are at the top of the food chain, toxic chemicals in the environment are concentrated in their diet.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 1:49:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/18/2015 3:30:53 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:



It doesn't take a "Big Pharma" conspiracy to disprove homeopathy. Homeopathy's basic principle is wrong. Samuel Hahnemann's original observation--that cinchona caused fevers in healthy people--was wrong. The massive dilutions homeopathy uses means that most homeopathic remedies to contain not a single molecule of the so-called active substance.(3)

I have never stated that I support homoeopathy principles. I just used their site to give evidence. I don't believe in any medicines, whether they are allopathic or naturopathic.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?

There wont be any peer reviewed evidence for my claims because you can't make any money out of true health practices. But, you can test it for yourself. If you go on a strict palaeolithic diet, I guarantee that you wont get sick, have any allergies or have any headaches etc.

The evidence is in nature. If you observe nature in is purest form, you will notice that disease does not occur. Disease is a man made phenomenon.

Palaeolithic man may have eaten a small amount of grain, but not in the highly refined and processed variety that is made now. The more refined a food is, the less healthy it is - (a general rule of good health.)

Refining food might reduce nutrients, but it most likely does not introduce harmful chemicals at the same time.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 1:53:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/18/2015 3:30:53 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:



It doesn't take a "Big Pharma" conspiracy to disprove homeopathy. Homeopathy's basic principle is wrong. Samuel Hahnemann's original observation--that cinchona caused fevers in healthy people--was wrong. The massive dilutions homeopathy uses means that most homeopathic remedies to contain not a single molecule of the so-called active substance.(3)

I have never stated that I support homoeopathy principles. I just used their site to give evidence. I don't believe in any medicines, whether they are allopathic or naturopathic.

Any peer reviewed, scholarly evidence for that claim?

There wont be any peer reviewed evidence for my claims because you can't make any money out of true health practices. But, you can test it for yourself. If you go on a strict palaeolithic diet, I guarantee that you wont get sick, have any allergies or have any headaches etc.

Except that in order to prove that there's in fact such a conspiracy, you'd need to have evidence--evidence which doesn't exist. The claim that Big Pharma is censoring results contradicting germ theory is an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence. Until the evidence is provided, it would be very difficult to convince anyone that said belief is more than just a silly conspiracy theory.
:) nac
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 3:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 1:41:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/19/2015 12:17:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/18/2015 11:05:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:

The evidence is in nature. If you observe nature in is purest form, you will notice that disease does not occur. Disease is a man made phenomenon.

You're a troll but I can't let this absurdity go uncontested.

http://www.tassiedevil.com.au...

http://theconversation.com...
Look to the trees.
In Tasmania, huge areas are taken up by plantation forests, and these are regularly sprayed with pesticides and poisons.

Wrong. There are 18,000 hectares of hardwood plantations and 49,000 hectares of softwood plantations on Tasmanian State forests out of a total of 3.3 million hectares, a very small fraction.

http://www.forestrytas.com.au...

An annual average of about 1% of the Forestry Tasmania eucalypt plantation estate is aerially sprayed with insecticides to control defoliation by leaf beetles. The only insecticides used for aerial spraying of plantations are alpha-cypermethrin and spinosad.
Forestry Tasmania has not used the triazine herbicides atrazine or simazine since the mid 1990s.


Of special concern is the pesticide atrazine, used to control grass and broadleaf weeds. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority carried out an extensive review and considers atrazine safe to use under current guidelines which include "conditions outlined on product labels". The Tasmanian government"s information on atrazine says it "does not cause mutations" and is "not likely to cause cancer".

But there are those who point to research that suggests atrazine is a cancer promoter. The US Environmental Protection Agency had this to say following its review of studies by a federal Scientific Advisory Panel:

Even though the panel agreed with EPA that the epidemiologic evidence does not strongly suggest a link between atrazine and cancer, the panel did not agree that a lack of strong evidence justifies a conclusion that atrazine is not likely to be a human carcinogen.
Also of concern is the poison 1080, used to kill native species that are a key part of the devil diet. The Tasmanian government says devils have a relatively high tolerance to the poison but it also concedes there is a risk of secondary poisoning with three poisoned pademelons likely to be fatal to a 5kg devil.

Plantation forestry pesticides contaminate 44 of 48 river catchments in Tasmania.

So a role for pesticides and poisons seems plausible, because the devil disease is found only in parts of Tasmania where there are extensive forest plantations. Furthermore, because devils, as carnivores, are at the top of the food chain, toxic chemicals in the environment are concentrated in their diet.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 3:21:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 1:49:11 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

Refining food might reduce nutrients, but it most likely does not introduce harmful chemicals at the same time.

I didn't say that refined foods contain harmful chemicals. Well, they do bleach grains with chlorine to make them whiter, but I guess you wouldn't know about that because they aren't required by law to state it on the packaging. The allergic aspects of grain would be caused by chlorine contaminates and histamines.
But, you don't have to add chlorine to grain to make it unhealthy. It is generally bad for your hormone system and it depletes vitamins in the digestive process. If you are going to eat some grain foods, I would suggest eating the wholemeal variety in small amounts.

P.S.
Pity you declined the germ theory debate.
I guess you could see that germ theory is an undefendable and an irresponsible theory which has caused the premature death of millions of people.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 3:30:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 3:06:20 AM, dee-em wrote:

Wrong. There are 18,000 hectares of hardwood plantations and 49,000 hectares of softwood plantations on Tasmanian State forests out of a total of 3.3 million hectares, a very small fraction.

'Plantation forestry pesticides contaminate 44 of 48 river catchments in Tasmania'. I guess you missed this bit. That doesn't leave much area for the Tasmanian Devils now, does it?

What about the fire retardants and the animal baits? No mention of this?

http://www.tassiedevil.com.au...
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 3:36:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 3:30:25 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/19/2015 3:06:20 AM, dee-em wrote:

Wrong. There are 18,000 hectares of hardwood plantations and 49,000 hectares of softwood plantations on Tasmanian State forests out of a total of 3.3 million hectares, a very small fraction.

'Plantation forestry pesticides contaminate 44 of 48 river catchments in Tasmania'. I guess you missed this bit. That doesn't leave much area for the Tasmanian Devils now, does it?

What about the fire retardants and the animal baits? No mention of this?

http://www.tassiedevil.com.au...

Oh please. This cancer wasn't detected until 1995 and has been decimating the Tassie Devil to the present day. The pesticide you pointed to was phased out at about the time the first cases were discovered. Your whole argument (speculation really) just fell apart right there. Now, true to form, you are off on another tangent. Begone troll.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 4:32:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 3:36:50 AM, dee-em wrote:

Oh please. This cancer wasn't detected until 1995 and has been decimating the Tassie Devil to the present day. The pesticide you pointed to was phased out at about the time the first cases were discovered. Your whole argument (speculation really) just fell apart right there. Now, true to form, you are off on another tangent. Begone troll.

The definition of a troll is someone who is not interested in debate or evidence but is only interested is in offending and intimidating people with insults and threats.

I think that you fit the bill perfectly.