In message <9aa15181-44d1-47bd-9d7f-136e13e3bcc6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:
> In considering the concept of contagion and the germ theory of
> disease, one must consider that those who profit from it are the ones
> promoting and defending it.
You know that someone has no faith in their own arguments when
they start off with a blanket /argumentum ad hominem/ attacking
anyone with any expertise in the subject.
> Have you ever wondered just how many bacteria it takes to successfully
> invade a human and cause illness? Does it take one or a billion and
> one? The docs don?t know. Do you?
Ah, the /argumentum ad ignoratum/ -- "if they don't have a simplistic
answer that makes sense to a dummy like me, they must not understand
either." Try that one on the engineers designing aircraft.
(And, yes, microbiologists do know, within bounds, how many
bacteria are required to ensure infection for a given disease and
other circumstances -- but like the bridge, the answer isn't so
simple it can be understood by high-school dropouts like Chuckles.)
> Bacteria may be found in the air, the water, in food, and on
> surfaces. Have you ever wondered why a steak may have bacteria on its
> surface but ground meat will have the bacteria spread throughout.
> Ever wonder why?
/argumentum ad ignoratum/ again, and a pretty silly one. Most people
can figure this one out if they bother.
> Then there is the question of just how these bacteria gain entry into
> the body proper. How do these dormant entities wake up to become
> active, infective agents of illness?
Same as how seeds sprout. Come to think of it, Chuckles, you
obviously don't believe in plants based on prior writings about
viruses.
> How to the bacteria defeat the
> mucous of the mucous membranes,
It ain't steel, hmm? Mucus is permeable -- that's its whole purpose.
In fact, /heliobacter pylori/ depends on the gastric mucus to protect
it from stomach acid. Of course, Chuckles insists that the stomach
is supposed to be alkaline, although he keeps ducking out when I ask
for a "good" pH range for gastric fluids.
> wiggle past our cellular defenses,
> defeat our immune system,
I'm guessing that "cellular defenses" are rhetorical repeat
of "immune system," but either way there are plenty of different
answers. One of the better ones is, "it's a race." Since the
human immune system is reactive, a pathogen that reproduces
rapidly enough can stay ahead of it long enough to spread to
another host. Mild URIs (e.g. rhinoviruses) are like that.
Unlike Chuckles' "innate intelligence," the real immune system
has actual, observable mechanisms that can be studied. Here\
is a video of a neutrophil tracking down /listeria monocytogenes/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpOxgAU5fFQ
There are other methods; given a few billion years of "arms
race" between pathogens and their hosts it's hardly surprising
that both sides have more than one weapon system.
A good example is /bacillus anthracis/ -- it attacks and
multiplies in the same macrophages that are the first stage
defense of the immune system.
Here's a SEM of /bacillus anthracis/ invading a macrophage:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/imageview.php?issue=12&article=briefs_5&image=briefs_5_01_AnthraxMacrophage
> find dead food to eat ( bacteria only digest
> dead organic material, never living cells ).
Wrong-o, Bucky. Bacteria do indeed thrive on living cells.
/Bacillus anthracis/ being a good example, but perhaps better known
are the /plasmodium/ family.
Here's an optical micrograph of a red blood cell (erythrocyte) that
has been invaded by /plasmodium falciparum/ :
http://flickr.com/photos/ajc1/1983446827/
Instead of Chuckles' talking head videos, here is a video of
/listeria monocytogenes/ running around in a host cell after
invading it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF4BeU60yT8
> Why do they not go on to
> kill the host each and every time they succeed
> as they do in gangrene?
Is this supposed to be a poser? Basic immunology. Apparently it's
supposed to be another "because the uneducated (yes, Chuckles, that
means you) don't know the answer then obviously it's *WRONG!*
It's back to that "immune system" thingie. Watch the neutrophil
video again -- shouldn't the theme from "Jaws" be playing?
> as they do in gangrene?
"Gangrene" is a condition, not a disease. I've had a gangrenous
appendix, which manifestly didn't kill me. "Gangrene" just means
that the tissues have died. Now, "gas gangrene" is a lovely example
of an anaerobic decay bacterium consuming dead tissue and in the
process producing conditions that lead to more dead tissues, which
is good work if you can get it. Same thing goes for Type A haemolytic
streptococcus or the nastier versions of /staphlococcus/ going around
(the ones that make the news as "MRSA.") All of them really are
consumers of dead tissues that have acquired the ability to improve
their "diets" by producing toxins that make for more dead tissues:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreinafrica/388125268/
> You do realize that the gods of medicine do not know how many bacteria
> it takes to make an infection,
Saying it with insults added doesn't make it so.
> nor do they know how the bacteria gain
> entry into the body proper,
Of course we know -- /bacillus anthracis/, for instance, can enter
through broken skin, through the digestive tract, or through the
respiratory system. The lungs, in order to do their job, can't
have much in the way of mechanical protection and are a short cut
to the circulatory system.
Now, if you're going to insist that the Universe restrict itself to
phenomena that an uneducated boob like Chuckles (they hand out PhDs
for learning to feed yourself on Mars) can understand, then maybe
you would expect that there be one and only one way that pathogens
gain admittance to the system. I suppose that must be quite
comforting. Sort of like having a honking vault door on a lath-and-
plaster vault, you could count on the Bad Guys always attacking at
the point where the defense is strongest.
> and nor do they know why the host normally
> recovers.
Again, just because you don't understand doesn't mean that everyone
else is as mentally limited as you are. Hosts recover because the
body goes into gear producing chemical attacks against the little
suckers that have made it over the walls. Which isn't the same as
"hosts always recover." /Yersinia pestis/, for instance, has a
chemical that's part of its internal machinery ("murine toxin")
that is released when the bacteria die. If they die too quickly,
the host does too.
> However, the gods of medicine are very good at making up
> excuses and putting on a great show and display of ?medical
> knowledge?. LOL.
Is that supposed to be an argument?
> Use some common sense. You will realize that the germ theory of
> disease is a medical fraud.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Chuckles. You've already admitted that
your religion is based on faith, not science.
> Bacteria do not cause disease. They may be involved but only as
> innocent bystanders.
There are some prairie dogs in Colorado that you're trying very hard
to pretend don't exist. Not to mention a lovely little exercise
going on in Seattle involving /plasmodium falciparum/
Hey! That's it. How about you head to Seattle and put your
butt where your mouth is (hey! quiet in the peanut gallery!)
There are some mosquitos there that would love to meet you,
and according to you there's no risk at all on your part.
> The virus is an ?excuse? for the medical god that you are sick but
> there are no bacteria to blame.
Well, aside from the little details of replicability, isolation,
sequencing, detailed (and tested) mechanisms for cellular penetration,
intracellular replication (did you ever look up what a "retrovirus" is,
by the way?)
Then again, I forgot that your religion forbids reading anything more
recent than the early 20th century when we didn't have the means yet
to directly observe viruses and had to deduce their existence by their
effects. Sort of like subatomic particles.
Back then must have been the "good old days" for you, and I can understand
your reluctance to leave them. Viruses were just as unobservable as
"native intelligence," which would have made it a lot easier to pretend
that your woo-woo was just as good an explanation. Well, aside from the
fact that with pathogens it's possible to actually, like, *test* the theory
that a given cause produces a given result instead of waving your arms and
crying "Inshallah!" or whatever your religion's equivalent might be.
Too bad that science advanced and you were left screaming at passersby
on street corners.
> The ?auto-immune? disease is an admission of total medical ignorance.
You mean the whole thing with production of antibodies against foreign
antigens that also have the side-effect of damaging host tissue?
That whole mechanism is fairly well understood and can be caused on
demand, which must really put a twist in your knickers.
> AIDS is a medical hoax. DIDS is the correct name for the condition.
Which reminds me -- which drugs do you claim caused the death of
three-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill?
> Bird flu is a medical joke.
Keep hoping so, because if not you're in serious risk of neurological
infection.
| "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against |
| unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct |
| before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson |
+-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+
drceephd@insig…
Carole
