 Originally Posted by drewmandan
My point is, if even a few of those bacteria being breathed in were completely foreign, you would die.
I see a bunch of assertions, and nothing to back it up. I'm guessing you'll have to just forgive my ignorance. But if I was to encounter a type of bacteria that's completely foreign to me, I would die? That's news.
 Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Most Cholera cases come from drinking poopy water.
...yes...and what does that have to do with what you quoted me on? Did I say it didn't? 
 Originally Posted by nitsuJ
There's no need to help those that can't help themselves.
You're just as able to look up information as I am.
Oh, I see. So the way this game works is, you declare something...anything...to promote your stance on an issue, and the burden is on me to look it up and verify it for you. I see. I've been in plenty of discussions with plenty of intelligent people, and the overwhelming majority of them had absolutely no problem with presenting evidence to back their claims. If you expect me to look up every single thing you say is true, just because you say it's true, we're pretty much done here.
I can tell you that Unicorns exist, that it's common knowledge and that your disagreeing showcases your ignorance. I could tell you that the truth has been uncovered, and that everyone knows it but you. Then, when there doesn't seem to be any documentation about it, I can talk about how you're unable to help yourself - effectively getting you to jump through hoops to look up something that I made up right there on the spot.
It's called backing your claims, and even the most novice conversationalists understand the concept. If it's too much to ask, I'm not about to entertain a debate with you.
 Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Why would anyone believe most viruses and bacteria aren't on all continents?
Why would anyone believe most plants and animals aren't on all continents? Why would anyone believe there aren't pots of gold at the end of every rainbow?
 Originally Posted by nitsuJ
I'm pretty sure he doesn't think someone is immune to all forms of bacteria and viruses.
Did I say he did? Must have missed that, too.
But anyway, just to humor you...
In finishing up details on our new version of “Principles of Virology”, I came across this outdated statement in the introduction of volume 19 of “Comprehensive Virology”, written in 1984:
“Virology, as a science, having passed only recently through its descriptive phase of naming and numbering, has probably reached that stage at which relatively few new - truly new - viruses will be discovered.”
Today this statement is incorrect. Sensitive methods of genome amplification and detection have lead to the discovery of many ‘truly new’ viruses. It’s quite clear that the oceans are full of new viruses, yet to be discovered; and if we would only systematically look in wild animals, we are likely to find many more.
It would probably be accurate to say that we will be discovering new viruses for quite some time. However, the point of this post is that such predictive statements about virology are likely to be proved wrong in the future - so I will refrain from predicting.
http://www.virology.ws/?p=58
Bacterial wilt of tomatoes caused by R. solanacearum race 1 is a serious disease in many tropical and sub-tropical regions including southern regions of the United States, and does not survive in cool temperate climates such as Canada.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/.../12hrt03a3.htm
So, for example, when farming was first developed thousands of years ago, we lived near animals for the first time. That allowed us to acquire the antigens.4 Further on in our history, when people started to congregate in cities, disease could spread rapidly for the first time. And in more recent years, things like global air travel, deforestation, wars, changes in agricultural practices, and so on, have changed our relationship with flora and fauna. So new diseases emerged. HIV is a great example. It looks very likely that the change in land use in West Africa—when logging in proximity to monkey habitats—people acquired their viruses.
=====================
Why do some pathogens infect millions while others do not?
Disease is related to population size and density.
Holmes: There are a number of very critical evolutionary parameters. One of the most important—and why I mentioned previously that human evolutionary ecology has changed—is population size and density. From a human ecology standpoint, the more hosts you have, and the denser they are, the more likely the pathogen can get through and spread. So put in another way, when you are infected by a pathogen, the virus needs a new host to infect to keep itself going. If you have a small population, that is not that likely to happen. If you have a bigger population, you have more chances of transmitting the disease.
Measles can’t survive in some locations.
There have been some amazing studies of measles in populations. Some years ago scientists looked at islands and discovered an amazing statistic. They showed that measles can sustain itself on islands with a population size of something like 300,000 people. Below that number, measles dies out because there are not enough hosts for the virus to maintain itself. Above 300,000, it can keep itself going. So ecology plays a big role in disease.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...rs/holmes.html
Wow. "New species?" "Spread of pathogens based on interactions with the infected?" "Not likely to happen in small populations?" All of this is indicative of the idea that there may be plenty of viruses that aren't global yet. Plenty are localized among the flora and wildlife that harbor them.
At least, this is what I gather. If I'm wrong, provide me with information to the contrary. If you refuse to do that then this is simply a waste of time...however enlightening.
|
|
Bookmarks