Originally posted by soficrow…The existence of infectious prions has been acknowledged by Nobel Prize laureates and a world of distinguished scientists. Questioning “prion science” simply exposes economic/political bias. If you wish to do so, it’s certainly your privilege.

Don't get me wrong soficrow, I can't debate "prion science" intelligently until I know more about it. So I wasn't trying to discredit anything. I have been educated and conditioned to question everything. It's not a political or economic bias, it's just the way I think. It comes from taking too many chemistry/biology/physics courses in my college years.

Your OP led me to believe that we were talking about cross-kingdom jumps of infectious microbes like viruses. Such as the way the HIV virus crossed genera from pan to homo. If you say a microbe mutates and crosses kingdoms, that is a pretty radical claim, wouldn't you agree?

I cannot dispute "cross-kingdom communication" per se, we witness that all the time. A virus infects a human, that's an example of cross kingdom communication.

I will have to read your last post again, there may be something I missed, but it'll have to wait till later. Interesting subject though, it sounds like prion science has the potential to help us better understand things like cancer and some neurological and CNS type diseases.

Originally posted by engineer
Your OP led me to believe that we were talking about cross-kingdom jumps of infectious microbes ...If you say a microbe mutates and crosses kingdoms, that is a pretty radical claim, wouldn't you agree?

Engineer - Crown gall is a definitive example of a cross-kingdom jump - and the original data is pretty old. Today - genetic modifications are based on the mechanics of cross-kingdom 'jumping.' So please, give me this point. I deserve it. ...The claim is only 'radical' depending on when you graduated, and (maybe?) whether or not you did cross-disciplinary studies with cell biology and proteomics.

I will have to read your last post again, there may be something I missed, but it'll have to wait till later. Interesting subject though, it sounds like prion science has the potential to help us better understand things like cancer and some neurological and CNS type diseases.

I waited, got impatient. Decided to respond first. You're right, my interest is in the possible role of infectious prions in disease, and the implications. However, my research shows that prion-related diseases go far beyond "cancer and some neurological and CNS type diseases" - particularly when search parameters are expanded to include "mis-folded proteins" (a standard definition of prions).

...For purposes of discussion, would you care to proceed with the following premises?

1) Infectious prions do exist;
2) Prions are almost impossible to kill - they respond and adapt almost instantaneously to any environmental change including temperature shifts and thus, create new strains;
3) The original and most ubiquitous infectious prion is a mis-folded form of actin, ie., "a-smooth muscle actin" which proliferates, accumulates and causes fibrosis in human diseases like fibromuscular dysplasia, cystic fibrosis, and many more;
4) Via actin pathways in the cell membrane, cytoskeleton and cell nucleus, infectious actin prions can infect or hitch-hike on viruses, bacteria, mycoplasma, spirochetes, fungi, mold and virtually every life form on the planet.

The question: What are the implications of the above described circumstance?

...Are you in? ...Do you need references for the premises or can you roll from there?



.

Soficrow, sorry I delayed in responding. I would like to reference your last post to your first one for a moment.

Originally posted by soficrow
Crown gall is a definitive example of a cross-kingdom jump - and the original data is pretty old. Today - genetic modifications are based on the mechanics of cross-kingdom 'jumping.' So please, give me this point. I deserve it.

I can accept that Crown gall is caused by a bacterium, and that there is DNA modification of the plant cells in the mechanism. Other than the DNA aspect of it (which I'm not qualified to comment on) and the actual mechanism, I would say this is nothing new or surprising, bacteria and viruses are pretty much capable of attacking all forms of life.

My question is, does this represent an example of your first statement:

Originally posted by soficrow...We've got a planet full of microbes that are interracting with chemical contamination, radiation and shifting temperatures. They're mutating fast, some inside of 9 minutes, and now they're breeding across species AND kingdom lines!

I read this to say that a microbe that affects a species from one primary kingdom is capable of mutating and subsequently affecting a species from a different kingdom. So in the example of the Crown Gall, can that same species of bacterium that causes Crown Gall mutate and infect an animal or a fungus?

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't dispute cross kingdom "communication", any viral illness or infection caused by bacterial contamination is an example of that. And I don't certainly don't dispute that these organisms mutate. But can they mutate to the point that they can attack a species from a different primary kingdom?

Originally posted by soficrow
I waited, got impatient. Decided to respond first. You're right, my interest is in the possible role of infectious prions in disease, and the implications. However, my research shows that prion-related diseases go far beyond "cancer and some neurological and CNS type diseases" - particularly when search parameters are expanded to include "mis-folded proteins" (a standard definition of prions).

...For purposes of discussion, would you care to proceed with the following premises?

1) Infectious prions do exist;
2) Prions are almost impossible to kill - they respond and adapt almost instantaneously to any environmental change including temperature shifts and thus, create new strains;
3) The original and most ubiquitous infectious prion is a mis-folded form of actin, ie., "a-smooth muscle actin" which proliferates, accumulates and causes fibrosis in human diseases like fibromuscular dysplasia, cystic fibrosis, and many more;
4) Via actin pathways in the cell membrane, cytoskeleton and cell nucleus, infectious actin prions can infect or hitch-hike on viruses, bacteria, mycoplasma, spirochetes, fungi, mold and virtually every life form on the planet.

The question: What are the implications of the above described circumstance?

...Are you in? ...Do you need references for the premises or can you roll from there?.

Premise one I can accept.

Premise two, I have to question, because you first must show me that these prions are "alive" before I will accept they are difficult to kill.

Three I can accept.

Four I can accept, providing that these actin pathways are universal to "virtually every form of life on the planet".

The implications: Well, like you said, they probably play a fundamental role in evolution. I'm not sure we can do anything more than study them. Certainly we are not going to, nor do we want to, eliminate them from nature. In fact, they may be a basic player in the biodiversity of the planet.

One has to wonder just how much we should mess with them, though I am not advocating ignoring the science. But say we identify a prion responsible for, oh, alzheimers disease, and attack it. What would that result be? Would that prion then mutate and cause a more virulent reaction? I can imagine that in some cases it would.

When you consider the way bacteria can respond to antibiotics and create "super strains", you have to admire the resilience that nature has provided her little helpers.

But I suppose we can never turn back, penicillin is here to stay, we are not going to stop immunizing for disease, etc.

I happen to subscribe to the belief that we live on a very resilient rock. We may screw it up for ourselves, but it will bounce back like it has always done, and over time a new species will replace us as the "master". I also tend to feel that overpopulation is the prime mover in this. Humans sometimes imagine that we are separate from nature, that we can control it, but that is delusion.

I don't really care about extinctions per se, that has happened throughout the entire time there has been life on earth. What I fear most is the loss of biodiversity. I think we can beat on the rock only up to a point, and the whole thing will come crashing down. I think we may be very close to the point of no return as it is. As we destroy whole ecosystems, we commit ourselves to a future with fewer and fewer options.

Originally posted by engineer

I happen to subscribe to the belief that we live on a very resilient rock. We may screw it up for ourselves, but it will bounce back like it has always done, and over time a new species will replace us as the "master". I also tend to feel that overpopulation is the prime mover in this. Humans sometimes imagine that we are separate from nature, that we can control it, but that is delusion.

I don't really care about extinctions per se, that has happened throughout the entire time there has been life on earth. What I fear most is the loss of biodiversity. I think we can beat on the rock only up to a point, and the whole thing will come crashing down. I think we may be very close to the point of no return as it is. As we destroy whole ecosystems, we commit ourselves to a future with fewer and fewer options.

Engineer, Me2. ...except I think 'overpopulation' has a bad rap. Most over-use of resources results from industrial practices - also, my personal theory is that people (like plants and animals) respond to environmental stress by reproducing. Ie., fix the environmental problems, all the others resolve too as part of a natural balance. (Yah yah I know, social is environmental is this context but gimme a break okay? )

....You asked me earlier to provide an example of inter-kingdom cross-over. I did, with references. I also pointed out that inter-kingdom cross-over mechanisms provide the scientific basis for the "Genetic Modification of Organisms" (GMO) - Ie., Introducing fish genes into tomatoes.

Point being: A flourishing international industry already is based on mucking with "inter-kingdom cross-over." So any attempt at argument would be kind of a jerk off dontcha think? Ie., Pseudo debate under the circumstances, based on spurious semantics ? ...or do you honestly think that smart powerful scientists can do it, but little bitty microbes just don't have the appropriate laboratory resources? hehe

***

That said, I think you misunderstood my request. I asked you to accept the premises for "purposes of discussion." By 'discussion" I meant an 'if-then' investigation of the implications, not a debate-argument. Specifically, an investigative discussion of the implications, given the existence of an infectious actin-based prion.

In this form of discussion, the premises are 'given' solely for the purposes of discussion, and do not imply agreement. ...It is a standard device, designed to allow the reasoned investigation of possibilities and implications where underlying disagreement exists.

In fact, 'debate' would not go far. We both know this. ...By its current definition, "life" means an entity possessing genetic material; prions do not have genetic material; therefor prions are not alive, by definition. End of debate.

The only way to pursue such a debate is to redefine the concept of 'life' - which of course I think is necessary , but it's a different discussion, and not one that's a priority for me. (Time constraints, other demands and a different focus.)

...Which is why I asked you to accept the premises for "purposes of discussion." ...If you're not up for it, that's okay but 'twould be too bad - I need an educated sounding board... Either way it's been a slice. Thnx.

sofi


.

Originally posted by engineer
The implications: Well, like you said, they probably play a fundamental role in evolution. I'm not sure we can do anything more than study them. Certainly we are not going to, nor do we want to, eliminate them from nature. In fact, they may be a basic player in the biodiversity of the planet.

Agreed - but - we can nano-filter the pathogenic ones out of wastewater and drinking water, and use better decontamination procedures in hospitals and food production facilties to curb disease spread.

One has to wonder just how much we should mess with them, though I am not advocating ignoring the science. But say we identify a prion responsible for, oh, alzheimers disease, and attack it. What would that result be? Would that prion then mutate and cause a more virulent reaction? I can imagine that in some cases it would.

Agreed - I propose we lose the military approach to medicine (and life) - and go for the more cooperative evolutionary model. ...Ie., maybe our current sterilization/decontamination methods don't just kill bacteriophages (virus predators) but also natural prion predators. ...maybe rethink established procedures, back offf, leave nature free to create predators that evolve along with mutating microbes, and produce checks/balances?

When you consider the way bacteria can respond to antibiotics and create "super strains", you have to admire the resilience that nature has provided her little helpers.

But I suppose we can never turn back, penicillin is here to stay, we are not going to stop immunizing for disease, etc.

Hmmm. Maybe we can revive bacteriophage breeding (which was dropped for penicillin). Bacteriophages have the ability to mutate and evolve, just like the viruses they feed on. ...Kind of a headache free antibiotic breeding program. Might cut into pharma profits tho, so don't tell anyone.


Sorry - wrote the post above and did not register these comments you made. Defensive brain burp? lol

Comments?


.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Apparently the current powers do not care enough to save the planet, and otherwise want to line fewer pockets with more and more power and resources. ...Extinction is the product of a defective civilization, not "overpopulation," and other things. The problem is simply a "vested interest syndrome," not one of what is doable by the power of mind and good work.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

Sorry Skip - didn't mean to diss you.

I pretty much agree with these statements - but I suspect the problem is bigger, more complicated and more daunting than most decision-makers are qualified to handle. ...so they buy the wrong rationales and strategies, my most unfavorite being, "Wait for natural immunities to develop." Dumb. Wrong. Uneducated. ...Unnecessary. lol


.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Apparently the current powers do not care enough to save the planet, and otherwise want to line fewer pockets with more and more power and resources. ...Extinction is the product of a defective civilization, not "overpopulation," and other things. The problem is simply a "vested interest syndrome," not one of what is doable by the power of mind and good work.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

Sorry Skip - didn't mean to diss you.

I pretty much agree with these statements - but I suspect the problem is bigger, more complicated and more daunting than most decision-makers are qualified to handle. ...so they buy the wrong rationales and strategies, my most unfavorite being, "Wait for natural immunities to develop." Dumb. Wrong. Uneducated. ...Unnecessary. lol.

I just noticed your commentary, and thanks for your gentle manners. Perhaps oversimplification is your quite valid observation, yet when you consider this far too broad based blueprint, non inclusive of the complexities, I stand by the backbone of the argument. We either have to escape to outer space, manage our incentive system, or both. From those two ideas you can branch out the thrust of desirable event structuring. The fact of an extinction event within our unintended yet projeced future course is a sword of Damocles just as our capacity to do military things is powerful, say too powerful.

We may not have the means after a certain point of no return, to do something about the cumulative processes that have already enacted. The hope is to make a mission on both fronts highly desirable, surely we want to save our ecology our very livelihood, but also prepare a sufficiently massive outer space option accomplishing an interactively vibrant mission. In fact a large enough outer space option may help enough to solve the pressing and complicated problems of our biosphere.

I hope this added point of understanding is better, although you are still right that the problems may well be too complex and we may have to just throw in the towel sooner or later. Government action may never be enough; it is people who need change their very way of life. That does not mean decreasing the quality of life, since austerity does not help the ecology; we need healthy and powerful people in local environments everywhere to solve the problems.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
... you are still right that the problems may well be too complex and we may have to just throw in the towel sooner or later.

Good grief - I did not mean that. ...I think the problem is too complex for CEO's and most elected officials to grapple with - which leaves them at the mercy of 'advisors' who don't represent the interests of ordinary people.

Check the 'good news' link I posted above...


.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by SkipShipman
... you are still right that the problems may well be too complex and we may have to just throw in the towel sooner or later.

Good grief - I did not mean that. ...I think the problem is too complex for CEO's and most elected officials to grapple with - which leaves them at the mercy of 'advisors' who don't represent the interests of ordinary people.

Check the 'good news' link I posted above....

Comment: Whoops, I did not mean to suggest your approach was too dire. My point of reference however is that CEOs etc. may be gathering such complete power over our lives, that we may be stuck with their "solutions," which obviously do not work at all except to line their pockets with illusory quarterly "gains." The actual balance sheet is another story. But if you read onwards rather than selecting only the ATS suggested "brief excerpts," you may have realized how the "power to the people," approach is exactly what I said, although not exactly in your computer terms. Sorry that I am not entirely capable of writing each except as something totally sound independent of all other context, but I am working on it.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by niman

While the looming flu pandemic could kill off 1/3 to 1/4 of the world's population ...it would not cause a mass extinction.

True, if the flu pandemic were the only disease on the epidemic radar - but it's not.

Niman - to clarify: I do not think the human race will necessarily become extinct, but rather that we are facing myriad problems that if not addressed, raise the real danger. ...Bird flu is only one mutation in a rapidly growing selection.

...I do believe that people have the ability to face the truth and take care of business - if allowed.

Skip - so the question is - How do we inform people to create the necessary awareness and impetus? ...I've been experimenting here and find that scary stuff gets hits, but academically accurate (and thus boring) stuff does not... lol


..

im amazed that some people deny Humans have Any Effect on the Enviornment
Actually they seem to be the most uneducated people on earth

IM Ashamed that some of my fellow americans keep denying this
it proves beyond a doubt that the Oil companys and other industrial complexs are feeding them BS lies and such just so they can keep pumping out their toxic trash

i dont care in which way they disagree with me
i am not a enviornmentalist fanatic
im a logical human

the fanatics are those whom Deny Deny Deny Deny
sorry but that is by far the most rediculous idea ive ever heard
the Christians baseless arguements agianst evolution *which are also quite rediculous* are more believeable than the crap the Oil Lovers spread about how "Humans dont effect the enviornment at all"

Oh ya Oil Lovers; dont forget
Our Factorys pollution is Good for the enviornment isnt it?
Earth loves massive pollution
it makes everything nicer

ya right
honestly im getting sick of those people claiming this 100% lie
it is clearly impossible that humans have no major effect on the enviorment

Humans face extinction every minute of every hour of every day of every year
for many reasons
enviornmental collapse; nuclear war; disease outbreak; famine ,etc etc
which humans do a good job of helping these disasters manifest quicker obviously

other disasters which threaten us
meteors always threaten earth
one could crash and kill everyone instantly
thats just plain science

not much opinions here just a strong scientific push to remind others how thru history Those whom violently opposed science usually got wiped out

im talking directly to people like fledgling666 here
people like you whom deny humans detrimental effect on the enviornment are blind and you enjoy ignoring millions of facts

Just wait buddy
just you wait
give it 25years and you will see your point of view is screwed up
in 25yr there will be a handful of human created disastors
there is a 95% chance of that being true

Originally posted by soficrow
Skip - so the question is - How do we inform people to create the necessary awareness and impetus? ...I've been experimenting here and find that scary stuff gets hits, but academically accurate (and thus boring) stuff does not... lol
..

Hmm, perhaps not completely on topic but I've been toying with an idea for some time. What if one were to implement tax cuts for "healthy living"? Ie if you take good care of yourself mentally and physically you get a tax cut. Too much unhealthy living has an effect on both our mind and body so by living healthy you would find your powerful and aware people in all places that would implement this. The mechanics to get it to work would off course be quite big, although it sounds like a pipe dream I'm positive it could be done.

Originally posted by Szticks
What if one were to implement tax cuts for "healthy living"? Ie if you take good care of yourself mentally and physically you get a tax cut. I'm positive it could be done.

...It's already being done in many ways - and is part of a "Personal Responsibility in Health" campaign to blame the victims.

Our world is rife with disease-causing pollution and rampant epidemic infectious diseases - the expected H5N1 bird flu being only one of them.

I think it's beyond unconscionable to blame the vicitms under these circumstances.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
I think it's beyond unconscionable to blame the vicitms under these circumstances.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I did not try to imply to blame any victims of disease. However, it's in your best interest to take your responsibility and do what you can to remain healthy. And if it's possible to keep more of your hard earned money in the process all's the better I'd say.

Originally posted by Szticks

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I did not try to imply to blame any victims of disease. However, it's in your best interest to take your responsibility and do what you can to remain healthy.

Sorry if I snapped - I get prickly on this one.

IMO - I take power where and when I can - that's personal empowerment. ...The word responsibility denies reality and shifts blame, culpability and liability.

Ie., ...There are about 80,000 synthetic chemicals loose in the world -each of these has its own effects on the human body - but more important, any number of them can get together inside the body and cells to form literally trillions of new, unknown compounds, with equally unknown effects. Also, these chemicals and compounds affect microbes and cause them to mutate in response to the 'environmental changes' they create - and result in new diseases.

...This science is all well-known, documented, substantiated and verified up the wazoo. So IMHO - the concept of "Personal Responsibility in Health" is a dodge - pure spin - designed to offload culpability and liability.

...Which is not to say there's no hope, or that the individual does not have some power - but it is limited and the battle is uphill. In the end, it's just a matter of numbers, and our healthy cells and efforts are outnumbered by a sustained, overwhelming assault. Denial and 'nice' phrasing only helps the bad guys.


.

Just wanted to bring something up, take it as you will. Mankind, no mater what he does, is part of nature so whatever we do is technically we are participating within the rules of nature. Now with that however, we are the caretakers of the Earth and we have the responsiblilty not to abuse our understanding of the rules which addmittedly we do way too often, but I don't like this seperating humanity from nature like we just all of a sudden showed up and ruined a good thing.