Re: A letter I agree with

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:20:06 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <u7fu12ddmt8s0fdghv63cusnbdbpk0goof@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:33:49 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <m1st12tdriphooonn0g821ciqksk7qi6eh@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:12:52 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <elvo125157bpcnkvft4ul6d2avb8uo0vij@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:32:22 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <j2jn12paufr124h4qtg9jcr9jfhpa4n9tj@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

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

How long ago it was infected is immaterial to have antibodies it has
been infected as I state above.

Rubbish antibodies can be passed down from parents or possibly even
further back. I understand a disease can be no longer prevalent but
the population can still show antibodies.

Would you like to give a reference for that?

I am certainly not going to spend time looking up references. I have
told you that before.

What you really mean and don't have the courage to say so is this is my
opinion and I can't back it up in any way but I would be really pleased
if I could persuade you to believe it.


No, I mean exactly what I said.

Fine just don't expect me to believe it as I haven't any proof and you
have been proved to be not exactly accurate in your claims in the past.

When?

Ever.



No because you have said frequently that they are carriers.

Angus your are a liar. I have always pointed out that they are not
carriers but a carrier is a specific term. I have given you a quote to
confirm this. In case you need more try ISBN 0-7136-2680-1 page 146 in
my copy.

What quote was that?

The one in another post about the meaning of "Carrier"



Which one?



I have said that before they become carriers (that is before they
recover from the infection or before they seem healthy while still
giving off the virus) they are NOT carriers but infectious.


You're confused again. The scientists who have researched the problem
say that do not know the origin of the virus in reds. Do try to
overcome your difficulties.


Anther of your blatant lies.


What is?

Your attempt at changing the meaning of what the scientists mean. Isn't
it strange when anyone quotes science to you scientists are famous for
never getting it right but you cling on to a misinterpretation of a
single sentence backing by cries of the scientists said.


Are you saying the scientists are misinterpreting the issue. I seem
to remember you saying that about BBC.

You're obviously confused.



No, speculation. The scientists don't know the origin of the virus in
reds.

You are desperately trying to cling to a wrong interpretation. The
scientists do not know the virus which mutated to produce the pox virus.
You are trying to pretend that firstly it matters how the virus got to
any particular site of infection and that the scientists do not believe
or suspect that greys carried it. (Not in the sense of being a carrier
- see the reference above for a definition of a carrier).


You're getting yourself in a knot.

No knot there Angus merely your inability or pigheaded unwillingness to
understand.


See above.







NO Angus I do not agree with the wide sweeping statement you are trying
to pretend I do. I agree that the very few reds which have survived the
parapox will have antibodies. It does not show that the reds as a
population are beginning to show resistance. How do you/we know the
reds with antibodies have not been the result of mans intervention like
the one treated in Penrith.


Do you?

Reread what I wrote and with help you may work out the answer for
yourself.


I have. More speculation.

Right let us consider your supposed speculation.

It's not my speculation; it's yours.


No answer :-))

I agree that few reds
have survived the parapox. Not speculation fact. If many had then
there would be lots with antibodies. Even by your quote this is not so
- not speculation.


How do you make that out?

I said that in the para above but if you can't understand I will try
again. The quote you began with said few reds had shown antibodies.
Fact.

Yes.


Antibodies are the result of exposure to the virus and surviving. Fact.


Exposure but perhaps not infection. There are many people who don't
get a certain disease who are exposed to it. Why is that?

If many reds had survived parapox then there would be lots with
antibodies. Fact.


See above.





Even if I did tell you, you wouldn't believe it because you are either
deliberately misinterpreting the quotes you give or are lacking in
sufficient intellect to interpret the quotation.


What quotation?

The one you keep posting which you grasp at which says greys have not
been proved to be carriers. Something by the way which if you check
back I have never questioned. I have however tried to get you to
realise that they can be infective without being carriers.


So are you saying the origin of the virus in reds is greys? The
scientists don't say that.

Angus stop pretending your thick and stop trying to put words into the
scientists mouths,

I'm not.


1. The scientists mean by origin the virus that mutated to produce the
parapox virus. I have pointed this out to you often but because of your
clutching at straws mode you fail to notice it.

2. The greys have antibodies they must have been exposed to the virus.

3. There is no reason on earth why the greys while infective with the
parapox can not infect the reds. There isn't in anything I have read a
single suggestion that the reds have not caught the virus from the
greys.

4. The only suggestion that this is not the case has been made only by
a single Scot who appears to be either incredibly thick or more likely
clutching at straws and PRETENDING that he doesn't understand. This of
course does make him look a little strange.


See above.



Sure, and within same species too.

As I understand what I have come across the
greys probably are little affected but enough to cause the production of
antibodies. However the virus has a devastating effect on reds and so
they do not generally live long enough to build up the antibodies and
survive.


All very well, but the scientists don't know the origin of the virus
in reds. More speculation.

Angus I am beginning to worry about your intellectual abilities.

The scientists do not know the origin as in the original virus which
mutated.

That's not what they said.

Angus that is they meaning of what has been said and if you dig deep
enough read enough reports etc. and perhaps talk to a few people they
will confirm for you that that is the case. Just because you cling onto
a SINGLE reference and YOUR own interpretation doesn't mean that it
isn't the case. Go on do as you frequently urge me to do - research
make sure you know what you are talking about before you cling so
desperately to a SINGLE reference and a single interpretation of your
own.


What reports?



You are trying to pretend that they are talking about how a
virus gets to any particular habitat. They don't and for that matter
how the virus gets there is immaterial.

It's very "material" to the greys if they are being falsely blamed for
it

NO however the virus gets into a population of squirrels doesn't matter.

Of course it does. Tell that to the red squirrel fanatics.


The fact is that once in the greys will live with the disease spreading
ti to other greys and reds. Reds become dopey and rather static and so
do not spread the disease so much.


Not what the scientists say. Read the quote again.



Read a few references on the development of antibodies and the course of
diseases.


Haven't the time to indulge your speculation.

I see Angus understanding what you are talking about is indulging
speculation.. Well that makes it clear for one and all about how much
you care about giving correct honest answers.


It's facts,not speculation, that matters.

I couldn't agree more that is why it is so vital that you don't cling to
single reference but read more widely and get a better understanding of
the facts. I keep feeding you facts but you always speculate that they
are wrong.


No. You're feeding speculation that the scientists do not say or know.



Any scientist will tell you that animals are infective while suffering a
disease and in many cases before and after showing any signs of the
disease. (After is dealt with in the quote about carrier) I won't get
you to tax your brain with the before but consider this if animals
aren't infective when suffering a disease then no other animal would
ever catch the disease - there would be no source of infection. In fact
disease would not exist it would be like a species of animal which
couldn't breed. There would be the one generation and then the virus
would die out as the host had died and it couldn't have spread.

Silly man.


Could you explain that, please.

Certainly. Any scientist will tell you that animals while suffering a
disease are infective.

If there was no phase when they were infective the disease would never
spread.

As a result there would never be any microbe caused disease and we would
all live in utopia.


What about those who naturally fight off the disease. They must have
some form of protection. They might be exposed, and trigger
antibodies and not show any infection - unless you know of another way
they are portected. I'm not a scientist. I only go on what they say
and that is they don't know the origin on the virus in reds.





Firstly it means the origin of the virus in its first outbreak is not
known. That is the virus it mutated from.


No it doesn't. they don't know of the origin of the virus in reds.

As you are going on like a stuck record explain which of the
possibilities of origin you think they mean.

a) The origin of the virus.

b) the origin of that particular out break.

c) they have no idea what causes parapox


They mean what they say.

I keep telling you that but you show signs of confusing so go on define
what they mean by the origin.


Where the reds are picking up the disease.





Secondly even if we take the misinterpretation you are applying to it,
it does not say a grey with the virus will not be infective it merely
says they haven't traced how the virus got into the population. (Please
note this is not the meaning as used in the quote and a number of other
things I have read it is how I see you using the quote). You appear to
be trying to use the statement that the origin of the virus is not known
to suggest it couldn't possibly be from the greys.

The logic is IMO flawed. Firstly to have antibodies the greys have at
some time been exposed to the virus. (Your statement hasn't been backed
up so is logically disregarded as I have no proof this is so)

Secondly even using you attempts to suggest it isn't greys they are at
the moment the only animals that you or the "scientists" you keep
quoting has been exposed to the virus and lived long enough to spread
it.

Thirdly an equally acceptable interpretation of "the origin of the virus
is not known" could be we don't know if it came from pocket of infection
A B or C it doesn't say it wasn't carried by an infected grey. (Before
you answer remember the term carrier has a specific meaning while the
word carried does not).

More speculation.

OK here is a simple little point for you. Where did the greys get the
antibodies from bearing in mind that the disease is of historically
recent origin.

How recent and where did it originate from?

Could they have got it from the reds?

Which ever animal they got it from a red or a grey doesn't matter they
have got the antibodies from being infected by the virus.

It matters a lot to the greys. Their lives are at stake from the nazi
conservationists.



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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... carriers but a carrier is a specific term. ... giving off the virus) they are NOT carriers but infectious. ... say that do not know the origin of the virus in reds. ... any particular site of infection and that the scientists do not believe ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... grey squirrel, whilst very few red squirrels carry the ... antibodies to the virus. ... So they don't know the origin of the pox in reds; ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ...
    (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: AIDS
    ... virus, but only "markers" that can be generated by totally non-viral ... PMID: 9126268 ... No test of tests for any infection or any other medical condition ... molecular clone from a patient with primary infection. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Watch out for this
    ... The 'swen' worm and its effects, ... there is not much you can do to stop the flood. ... e-mail for virus infection. ... You can use a remote virus scan from one of the antivirus program ...
    (microsoft.public.security.virus)