In article ,
outsider wrote:
On 8/8/2011 1:35 AM, Billy wrote:
[...]
Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.
I'm sorry, Billy, but you're mistaken. I urge you to read this book,
and perhaps other more advanced ones on the topic, and see how it
all fits together.
And I suggest that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica to see what
knowledge looks like.
You seem to be better adapted to sound bites than presenting an argument.
Let's back up to,
"We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.
We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.
But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.
All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being."
- outsider
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...o-combat-malar
ia
The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the
insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be
used as a last resort in combating malaria.
The stance of the panel, led by a University of California
epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health
officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was
endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's
Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program . . .
The scientists reported that DDT may have a variety of human health
effects, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast
cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. Its metabolite, DDE,
can block male hormones.
In 2007, at least 3,950 tons of DDT were sprayed for mosquito control in
Africa and Asia, according to a report by the United Nations Environment
Programme.
In South Africa, about 60 to 80 grams is sprayed in each household per
year, Bouwman said.
A 2007 study on male fertility is the only published research so far.
Conducted in Limpopo, South Africa by de Jager and his colleagues, the
study found men in the sprayed homes had extremely high levels of DDT in
their blood and that their semen volume and sperm counts were low.
"Clearly, more research is neededŠbut in the meantime, DDT should really
be the last resort against malaria, rather than the first line of
defense," Eskenazi said.
The pesticide accumulates in body tissues, particularly breast milk, and
lingers in the environment for decades.
Since then [2001, Stockholm Convention], nine nations‹Ethiopia, South
Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and
Swaziland‹notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT.
Five others‹Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and
Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China,
have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January
Stockholm Convention report.
Mexico, the rest of Central America and parts of Africa have combated
malaria without DDT by using alternative methods, such as controlling
stagnant ponds where mosquitoes breed and using bed nets treated with
pyrethroid insecticides. But such efforts have been less successful in
other places, particularly South Africa.
"We have a whole host of mosquito species and more than one parasite.
The biology of the vectors is different and there is therefore no
one-method-fits-all strategy, as is the case in Central America,"
Bouwman said.
---
So much for having chosen human beings for our victims
On to the "Red Herring" of "Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the
modification to the (sic) CR5 [CCR5 ] gene".
Plague didn't cause the mutation in CCR5, but it gave those who had it
an evolutionary advantage.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html
Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance
gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black
Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe,
killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were
individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could
not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by
the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the
most common today.
---
Also see
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered
http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-S...113453/ref=sr_
1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312810518&sr=8-1
For example:
Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the modification to the
CR5 gene. Exposure to bubonic plague didn't lead the survivors
to procreate more. Survival only allowed those with the mutant
gene to represent a larger segment of a surviving population.
However you'll find that Mediterranean peoples today have a
smaller portion of the population with the mutant gene than
those in northern Europe.
Which is where the mutation appears to have come from. Mystery solved.
Why would that be if the only survivors had the mutant gene?
Logic would dictate that there's more than one mechanism for
survival. But that's generally true for *any* mechanism where
that mechanism can fail. A study of parasites in general shows
how complex their needs are to survive generation after
generation.
I can't think of anything in the natural universe that's linear.
Yet your arguments have historically depended on linear attributes.
Natural universe, perhaps not, but in scientific modeling (premise,
hypothesis, conclusion, new hypothesis based on the synthesis of new
information, ad infinitum) it is about all we have except for the
occasional paradigm shifting revelations grated to the few. What you
offer are interesting, unconnected, misleading factoids that prove
nothing.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/
[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis