Re: A letter I agree with

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:16:42 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <7eij125mh476k9ahi59mvhgdqc7dlm4gl5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:41:48 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <po5h12limib9slov0nlc4jobd6npbd6crg@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

Angus what is wrong with the scenario. Do you have logic problems.

Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus.

Only one death from the virus means they don't die from the disease.

While they have the virus and are in contact with the reds they are
obviously carriers. I agree that as yet there is no evidence that they
carry the virus long term. However even you must accept that while they
are infected enough for the be developing the antibodies they will have
the virus which they can pass on to reds.

The word carrier at least in the reading and what I was taught at school
is used for individuals who having developed resistance to a disease
show no symptoms but continue to be infective for the rest of their
lives. It may not yet have been shown that such individuals exist hence
the use of the word possibly. Surely however even you can not deny that
individuals who have the virus while they are developing the antibodies
will be infective.


I'm quite sure you wouldn't want condemned to death on such evidence
that amounts to a big fat zero.


That evidence is not a big fat zero. It does not say that greys are not
infective ever. It merely says that there have been as yet no proven
cases of an individual carrying the disease long after they have
developed antibodies.


Just as I said.

They don't know the origin of the pox in reds; the antibodies are
common in "some" grey populations; some ( fewer) reds have the
antibodies as well and presumably that's the beginning of a resistance
to the disease; only one grey has ever been found with the disease;
and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers.


Yes Angus

Good, you agree.

No Angus I don't.

Why did you say "yes"? You obviously do agree.

I see you have got so desperate that you are having
to snip parts of a sentence and try to assume they mean what you would
like.


I haven't snipped anything.

Angus you silly man. You have tried (rather badly and may I say
childishly) to separate the use of language in the first part of the
sentence from the rest to make it seem an emphatic agreement. Do grow
up a little.


Do try to get your facts right.



If you read the sentence as a sentence not your snippet it means
slightly different things.

But then I have grown to expect dishonesty from you.

I think you're confused again. Why agree in the first place.

Angus I as I have said before tonight if you were any were as near as
thick as you pretend you would be in a very bad way. Fortunately you
are not so do stop trying to play word games.


You're more confused than ever.




but you are choosing to ignore the implications of that
statement to the detriment of the reds.

Like what?

Like those I set out above.

But there's no proof of it. It's all speculation.

Hang on Angus which part of this is peculation. Just answer with the
number of the paragraph.

1. To have antibodies an animal must have been infected by the virus OR
vaccinated.

It could have been infected a long time ago and not necessarily be a
carrier.


2. No wild grey squirrel is likely to have been vaccinated against
parapox as far as I can find out no such vaccination exists.


Really? How clever of you to work that out.

3. While the grey was infected enough to be developing the antibodies
it would be giving off the virus.


But not necessarily afterwards.

4. The reds do not have many cases with antibodies because they die
from the disease generally. Some have survived like the one treated by
the Penrith vet with an anti viral drug usually used on cats.


Probably the greys didn't have them initially either. This IMO shows
that the reds are beginning to show resistance.

5, The virus given off by the greys while developing the antibodies
would be capable of infecting reds.

But that doesn't mean they are infecting reds at all. They could have
had and recovered from the virus.


6. Greys are therefor capable of being the source of infection for
reds.


They may be capable but not necessarily culpable.


Right Angus which of the above is speculation and before you make
sweeping statements please make sure you have some sort of proof that it
is speculation.

As far as I can see all of your speil is speculation.


If it is speculation you will have no problem proving the point will
you?

I don't have to, the scientists already have;

They don't know the origin of the pox in reds; the antibodies are
common in "some" grey populations; some ( fewer) reds have the
antibodies as well and presumably that's the beginning of a resistance
to the disease; only one grey has ever been found with the disease;
and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers.




They don't know the origin of the pox in reds; the antibodies are
common in "some" grey populations; some ( fewer) reds have the
antibodies as well and presumably that's the beginning of a resistance
to the disease; only one grey has ever been found with the disease;
and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers.

Seems you think you know more than the scientists.

No Angus it seems you are either incapable of understanding the para
above, wilfully ignoring the facts it doesn't spell out for you (the
most likely) or are really so ignorant of the biological facts that you
can't understand the para above.

Were you able to A) talk to the scientists (which by the way you
generally rate as a pack of liars who never get anything right - why
have you suddenly changed your mind? ) the would explain to you that the
points I make above are true.

B) If you took the trouble to do a bit of research you would find the
above was true. (Before you get into the childish word twisting I mean
the points I want you to comment on numbers 1 to 6)

However for reasons you have never explained you always try to read the
worst case scenario into ever thing. Surely this isn't because you now
that if you don't your arguments don't have the proverbial leg to stand
on.

See above.


Right Angus you now have two versions to comment on. The first 15
lines of this post and my numbers 1 to 6.

If you are capable please tell me which of those points is speculation
AND how they contradict the statement you are putting so much faith in.


See above.



Figures :-))





Why are you so anxious that the reds do not have their suffering
alleviated?

I'm not. I don't think any animal should be culled because it might
possibly be a carrier of a disease.

They aren't being culled because they might possibly be a carrier. Did
you not understand a single thing I wrote above.

I'll try again.

Carrier in this context is taken to mean an animal or person which has
been infected with the disease shows no signs of the disease but is
still giving off the infection.

HOWEVER.

While developing the antibodies the animal/person is giving off
infection. Mostly the antibodies overcome the infection and the animal
is no longer a threat. You must realise that while the antibodies are
being formed the animal is giving off the infection and "carries" the
ineffective agent. However the "technical" term carrier is not applied
until the individual is giving off infection long after the formation of
antibodies and all signs of the disease have disappeared.

For the antibodies to be common it means that the greys have been giving
off the virus there are therefor implications for the populations of
reds.


See above.

Nothing above address the fact that it is certain that to develop
antibodies strongly enough to be capable of infecting reds and other
greys. At this stage they are not technically carriers.


See above.

Why are you so scared to address this point?


I already have.



We don't do it to our own population; why should we do it to others?


A number of reasons. Firstly I and I expect most normal individuals see
animals as different to us if only for the reason they are a different
species to us.

Secondly all animals treat members of their own species differently from
members of other species so why should we be any different?

What other animals kill one members of one species to protect members
of a third?

Angus I have not said any do that is part of our being different to
animals we (well most of us) have the intellect to be able to realise it
is possible to make decisions like the ones you refer to, to kill some
animals for the benefit of others.

Not most of us. The fafe conservationists.


What's the big deal man kills animals every day you even eat them and
their products.

You're flanneling; that's a different issue.

Just remember this.

"They don't know the origin of the pox in reds"

Seemingly you do :-))

The MK plug is fused again.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... I understand a disease can be no longer prevalent but ... My experience with antibodies is with cattle. ... the greys population at all and certainly not to the degree that would ... giving off the virus and not be a cause of the infection. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ... Only one death from the virus means they don't die from the disease. ... While they have the virus and are in contact with the reds they are ... Can you explain how a grey can live in the same territory as the red be giving off the virus and not be a cause of the infection. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ... While they have the virus and are in contact with the reds they are ... and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Conservation Nazis
    ... >>And reds are much more likely to be exposed to reds than greys. ... >>>have explained many times depends on infection rates etc. ... Again you seem to be basing your ideas on contagion not ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Conservation Nazis
    ... And reds are much more likely to be exposed to reds than greys. ... Again you seem to be basing your ideas on contagion not infection. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)