Re: A letter I agree with

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:55:48 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <hh4122hpui473hjjgae143bmtou4pbeh9g@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:34:39 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <7jv02210gsp1ha5imvg9l1pm607ov0fpcg@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

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 am certainly not going to look back for you but I will give you the
quote again.

Blacks veterinary Dictionary.

Carrier - an animal recovered from a disease , or not showing symptoms,
but capable of passing on the infection to another animal.

By the way you aren't strictly correct in claiming they can't be
carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapox_virus

categorically states they can be carriers as does a number of other
websites and articles.


That doesn't prove anything.

Ah so scientists are infallible when they say what you want and mean
nothing when they say what other know.


I get the picture.


See above.





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.

No I didn't say they misinterpreted you are telling lies again.

So they must be right. What's the problem?

Because they used standard journalistic practice which isn't
misrepresentation BUT does not necessarily hit the nail on the head.


See above


This
from a man who claims to base his whinging on honesty. I said they used
standard journalistic practice.


Misrepresenting the issue is not IMO what the BBC would do.

Nobody but you has said they have.


See above


While talking about the BBC and as you put so much faith in what they
say - have a look at the article at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/369327.stm

Below a picture of a grey squirrel they say that greys carry the virus.
So as you think they are infallible it must be correct :-)))


Nobody is saying the greys can't be carriers. But they are not proven
to be the origin of the virus in reds. Nor is there proof as to how
many are carriers.


You have frequently resorted to your quote which says they can't be
carriers. You are getting to be such an inveterate liar that you can't
remember the lies you have told. We have just had a long discussion
about the fact that as (your claim) greys can't be carriers the
scientists didn't know how the virus got to the reds.

Do try a little honesty and far less lies.


See above






Right let us consider your supposed speculation.

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


No answer :-))

NO point you will just resort to silly one liners. However if you read
the above you will find that after you have made it very clear you are
basing your points on a single article the "speculation" is crumbling.
I have by the way plenty more references for you. When I'm ready
:-))))))


See above.



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?

Look back to my definition of carrier. Also just to help convince you.
Are you aware that Rushton et al 2000 AND Tompkins et al 2003 both agree
the role of the grey as a vector is becoming increasingly documented.

NB the first reference is 6 years old so the situation will be even
clearer now.


Are you saying that you know of the origin of the virus in reds?

Angus I you are clutching at straws. You claim "scientists" not named
and it would seem unprepared to say who they are more correct than
named scientists who have published documents.

There can be no doubt fro m the work of those two and others that greys
are infected at least one even showing clinical signs.


Sure. One!







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


See above.

Read the second para of this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapox_virus

Also this one - it gives figures and with your arithmetic background ti
may help.

http://www.glenoakzoo.org/parapoxvirus.htm




Are you saying that you know of the origin of the virus in reds?

Angus as I hinted to you earlier the origin (I note you appear to be
changing your definition) of the virus isn't as complete a mystery as
you suggest.


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.

Sorry but you are. However now immaterial because the scientists (you
know those folk who you have frequently in the past posts suggested
can't be wrong) have said greys can be carriers.



That's not denied.

You have been trying to deny that greys are carriers for some days now.


See above


Are you saying that you know of the origin of the virus in reds?

It depends on your definition of origin.. You appear to be clutching at
straws on your single quotations As I have said above the origin (in
my definition ) is not as unknown as you try to suggest.


See above



They scientists (you know those ones who up to now in this discussion
you have claimed infallible) say the grey is a vector, So in any
particular area greys can have brought it and spread it if that is what
you mean.


When did I ever say scientists were infallable?








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.

Try the references already given plus the third para under the heading
Parapox virus in this one.

http://www.napak.com/red_squirrel.html


I haven't really got the time to delve through endless refs. Are you
saying that you know of the origin of the virus in reds? If so iis it
the greys?

Do try to read about the things you hold yourself up as an expert on.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

Up to now you have been pretending that the scientists are infallible
due to you expert finding of a single quote.


Where have I ever calimed that scientists were infallable?


Certainly some facts are known The group of viruses the parapox belongs
to.

Parapox?

The place the virus was first recorded and the point in history are
known.

Where was that?


The fact that greys are a vector is also known so to keep stone
walling with "are you saying the origin of the virus is unknown" isn't
totally true.


It's what the scientists say in relation to reds.




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?

At least the ones I mention above. There are more to come if you look.


See above.

What you mean Angus is you are unprepared to gather background
information to inform your discussion. This has been suspected for a
long time. That is why you are so often well of the mark with your
arguments.


Not at all. The scieists have the background information. I am
merely reiterating their conclusion.







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.

Try the references already given plus the third para under the heading
Parapox virus in this one.

http://www.napak.com/red_squirrel.html


See above.

What you mean is you are unprepared to read anything which might
contradict the SINGLE article you have been placing so much faith in.
Why don't you just say so.


See above





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.

You read the references I have given then try to explain how your single
quote is so out of line with the others.


See above.

That does not address the fact your claim that is not what the
scientists say is clearly untrue.

Are you scared to read the reports as you know they will contradict your
stance.



See above






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

Read the references I have given and read more widely round the subject
before you open your mouth and put your foot in it again.

See above.

I had thought for some time that you unintentionally showed your self to
be the sort of plonker who tries to argue from a stand point of
ignorance. Now you are confirming that you will do anything to avoid
having to learn and understand about the things you comment on.


Not at all. I am merely reiterating the conclusion of the scientists.





.



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.

While they are fighting the disease they are capable of giving off the
virus. That has been the thrust of my point all along.

See above.

Angus that is a cop out. I haven't asked you to read a reference.
However it becomes very clear that you are just hanging all your
argument on a single quote which has been proved to be a little
unreliable.


See above




They must have
some form of protection. They might be exposed, and trigger
antibodies and not show any infection

Its called being a carrier.


See above.

Angus you have completely flipped. How can a whinge about not reading
reports that might educate you be a reply to a statement.


I presume the scientists are knowledgable of the reports and have
based their conclusions taking them into consideration.

Have you completely lost the plot?


Not in the slightest.




- unless you know of another way
they are portected.

I am not suggesting they are protected. I am suggesting they are
infective WHILE they are becoming protected. Again immaterial as they
can be carriers.

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.

Seems your wrong again I won't bother to repost the references above but
by now you should have read them anyway.

By the way the parapox virus is a member of the same group of viruses as
Orf. It very probably mutated from one of these. There are a number
around including one which attacks seals.



I suppose you'll say the grey squirrels gave it to them :-))

You have definitely lost the plot.


A joke, Malcolm.









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.

That is NOT the standard definition of the origin of a virus but even
using your definition ti is not quite correct see the references above.
Add to that knowledge that it first appeared in Norfolk and the virus
group and I would say the knowledge is considerably more on both my
definition and yours than you are claiming.


See above.

I take it that now you have become so desperate and confused that you
think whining about not having time to read reports is an answer to
anything. Do get a grip and be honest. If time really was a factor you
would have not replied at all.


It only takes a fraction of the time to reply to you as it would to
read reports that are probably the basis of the scientists'
conclusions.






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.


I think the references above are pretty conclusive don't you.

See above.

What is absolutely conclusive is that the scientists don't know the
origin of the virus in reds.



Angus you silly man. That is not absolutely conclusive. By your
original definition they know greys are a vector. By my original
definition it was Norfolk in the 80's.

If you have anything other than one quote to show it is so absolutely
conclusive PLEASE post it.

In the mean time before you make an even bigger fool of yourself PLEASE
inform yourself a bit more. Either read the refs I have post or some
others of your choice.


See above.



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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... No because you have said frequently that they are carriers. ... giving off the virus) they are NOT carriers but infectious. ... say that do not know the origin of the virus in reds. ... Below a picture of a grey squirrel they say that greys carry the virus. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... I have given you a quote to ... Carrier - an animal recovered from a disease, or not showing symptoms, but capable of passing on the infection to another animal. ... By the way you aren't strictly correct in claiming they can't be carriers. ... giving off the virus) they are NOT carriers but infectious. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... carriers but a carrier is a specific term. ... I have given you a quote to ... giving off the virus) they are NOT carriers but infectious. ... say that do not know the origin of the virus in reds. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Commentary: Typical Objections to Intelligent Design
    ... > the Intelligent Design movement. ... genetically engineered viruses or bacteria. ... you agree that it should be the scientists who figure it out, ... determine if a virus has been genetically engineered. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re-Creation of 1918-19 Virus Suggests Bigger Bird-Flu Threat
    ... scientists have reconstructed the 1918 influenza virus that killed 50 ... Like the flu viruses now raising alarm bells ... in Asia, the 1918 virus was a bird flu that jumped directly to humans, ... GenBank database as a condition for publishing the paper. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
Loading