Ebola, Dinosaurs, and Deuteronomy

[Gees]

Members;

Ebola, Dinosaurs, and Deuteronomy -- is there a connection? Maybe only in my mind, but there seems to be some coincidence that may warrant further scrutiny, so please consider my following thoughts.

Like most people, I followed the news articles about Ebola -- a frighteningly efficient killing disease. From what I understand, the virus that causes the disease, Ebola, is naturally carried by fruit bats, but does not infect them or turn into disease until ingested by another specie. It is thought that half-eaten food was dropped by fruit bats, then monkeys and apes picked it up, ate it, and became infected. Humans were then infected by eating the bats, monkeys, and/or apes. When I first read this explanation, I thought to myself, Are bats getting careless with their food? Why is this happening now, why not all along? Or is this truly a new virus?

Why would the monkeys want the old half-eaten fruit on the ground when there is fresh fruit in the trees? Monkeys and apes are not generally considered to be scavengers, are they? On the other hand, when there is a shortage of food, most species can become scavengers. Was there a food shortage? Maybe. Between encroaching civilization, deforestation, and the droughts that have plagued the area, the different species are being squeezed into sharing smaller living spaces. It seems feasible that a monkey or ape would be sitting in a tree protecting its hoard of food while a group of bats start buzzing around, so in defense, the monkey/ape might grab a bat and bite it -- not to eat it -- but in defense of the food supply. To me, this seems like a much more likely scenario and would infect the monkey/ape immediately. But no matter which scenario is more accurate, it seems that a food shortage and the sharing of a smaller space may be behind this transference of the virus and the ensuing disease.

We have long known that famine seems to trigger disease, and that disease can come from many sources. What I have been wondering is if disease is another way that nature self-balances. Is it possible that there are mechanisms built into different species that can be triggered by a food shortage and a fight for food? Is this one of the ways that nature uses viruses? If this is so, then it would have to attack the larger specie, because the larger specie would consume more food. When cataclysmic events or overpopulation causes a shortage of food, the specie that consumes the most food would have to be neutralized or diminished in order to re-balance the system in nature. Disease could do this.

Of course, if this were true, it would have happened before. Did it? Maybe. Since we have only had science for the last few hundred years, it would be difficult to know for sure, but there have been theories. I am reminded of the extinction of the dinosaurs and the theory that disease played a part in that drama. No one disputes the cataclysmic events that preceded the extinction of the dinosaurs, but because of the way that they died and the time frame involved, there is a theory that disease played a part.

The events that preceded their demise were world wide and would have seriously diminished the food supply -- this is not disputed. If this diminished food supply caused a change in behavior and eating habits, which is likely, then it could have also triggered the transference of viruses not unlike the Ebola virus. If this happened, then we might find that many dinosaurs died together en mass, which we found, and is what prompted the theory in the first place. It would also be likely that the larger species would die if this was a re-balancing of nature, which is also what happened. Because this event was world wide and long lasting, it would cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs -- or at least the large dinosaurs -- which is what happened.

I could not find the original theory that I read years ago because I am too dumb to remember the author's name, but the following link is close and considers disease, so it may be helpful.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103090702.htm

But there is a lot of time between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now, so is there evidence of this idea in that time? Well, a lot of civilizations came and went, but there was no science for most of that time, so the few records that we have come to us from religion. Most religions seem to have ideas of foods that we should not eat for various reasons. Since there is no evidence of "God", space aliens, or time travelers, I have to assume that these reasons are based on experience and observations. If eating some things seemed to trigger bad things happening, or disease, then it would be important to remember and keep that information.

The food restrictions would have accumulated over thousands of years, in good times and bad, during feast and famine, then passed down from each generation in the same way that our parents teach us about poison ivy. It must have been thought to be rather important to be incorporated into our religions and remembered. Maybe life threatening?

Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Books of Laws, in the Bible have fascinated me for many years. Once you get past the religious terminology, there is a tremendous amount of information that still has value today. I first read these Books decades ago and was fascinated by the laws that seemed to deal with hygiene in a time when germs were virtually unknown. The Middle Ages would have been much more pleasant if someone would have opened that book. Years later, after studying law, I again read Deuteronomy and was surprised to discover that our Common law, moral law, is deeply rooted in Deuteronomy.

But I have never understood the laws regarding food and why certain species are acceptable to eat. Considering that the laws regarding hygiene and social regulation, are so very valid, it seems unlikely that the laws regarding which species we are allowed to eat, were selected willy-nilly. There was a reason, or maybe reasons, why we are not supposed to use certain species as food.

Deuteronomy clearly states that we are not to eat species with a "padded" foot, and that we must limit our diet to animals that have a "cloven hoof and chew the cud". We are also required to limit our seafood diet to those that have "fins and scales". So monkeys, apes, and fruit bats are all out. One of the first ideas that struck me was that the more intelligent species were not to be used as food, along with scavengers. Most religious diets exclude scavengers, so this was not unusual.

The more intelligent species, the ones that are likely to be self-aware, were out, which led me to ideas about consciousness. Predators seemed to be out, whereas what are considered prey animals were OK. Most, if not all, of the allowable food species are swarming, flocking, herding, or schooling species, but some of these are excluded like honey bees and bats. What I found most interesting is that the "cloven hoof and chew the cud", and the "fins and scales" requirements look very much like DNA type classifications. Is it important to eat species that are less like us? Or species that do not have the same food requirements that we do?

We did not have science thousands of years ago, so these restrictions are the people's "best guesses", but it remains true that if the food restrictions in Deuteronomy were followed, Ebola would not have happened. And if it did happen by some freak circumstance, the only preventative to its spread, at that time, would have been the careful handling of body fluids and hygiene, as dictated in Leviticus. These are facts. This implies that they had some experience with dangerous diseases.

Although Deuteronomy has the food restrictions listed, Leviticus has the food restrictions and the hygiene restrictions. Most of the relevant information can be found in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 deals with a woman's blood issues after birth, Chapters 13 and 14 deal with diagnosing diseases like leprosy, then Chapter 15 deals with more ritual cleaning or purifying. So this is all about health, and it is interesting to note that a person was required to wash after touching "unclean" meat, but was also required to change their clothing and also required to wash or dispose of anything that the "unclean" meat or blood touched. These are the same procedures that we would use today to prevent disease, except that we now have better equipment and cleaners.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Leviticus

As the world becomes smaller and humanity fills in more spaces, there will be food shortages for us and for other species, so will there be more of these diseases triggered? It seems possible.

Please offer your opinions of the above.

Gee

[Strange]

Like most people, I followed the news articles about Ebola -- a frighteningly efficient killing disease. From what I understand, the virus that causes the disease, Ebola, is naturally carried by fruit bats, but does not infect them or turn into disease until ingested by another specie. It is thought that half-eaten food was dropped by fruit bats, then monkeys and apes picked it up, ate it, and became infected. Humans were then infected by eating the bats, monkeys, and/or apes. When I first read this explanation, I thought to myself, Are bats getting careless with their food? Why is this happening now, why not all along? Or is this truly a new virus?

 

It is not a new virus. The reason we (the world outside the areas where infection occurs) are more aware of it today is because of better communication. It is also more likely to spread over a larger distance because of greater numbers of people living together and travelling from one place to another.

 

The Ebola virus appears to be several thousand years old (in the sense of when it diverged from the Marburg virus):

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/8/800.abstract

 

Presumably their common ancestors had been around for many thousands or millions of years.

 

Why would the monkeys want the old half-eaten fruit on the ground when there is fresh fruit in the trees?

 

Nice use of the strawman there. Almost didn't spot it. Why do you say they are "old" fruit? If you saw nice fresh fruit dropped from a tree would you pick it up and eat it, or climb all the way to the top to get your own?

 

 

I first read these Books decades ago and was fascinated by the laws that seemed to deal with hygiene in a time when germs were virtually unknown.

 

That is probably why the rules are so broad and provide no justification. Early humans would have noticed that people are more likely to get ill from certain types of food and, over time, these would have been considered "bad" or "cursed".

 

If they had known about germs the rules would have talked about the importance of washing your hands and cooking your food properly.

 

There are a very large number of these food-born diseases and parasites, so I am not sure why you are drawing a connection with the Ebola virus, which is not common in the areas where the rules originated. They are more likely to be caused by hepatitis, salmonella, shigella, vibrio, clostridium, norovirus, and various parasitic worms and protozoa.

[pzkpfw]

...

 

Nice use of the strawman there. Almost didn't spot it. Why do you say they are "old" fruit? If you saw nice fresh fruit dropped from a tree would you pick it up and eat it, or climb all the way to the top to get your own?

 

...

Just a few days ago I was telling my Father about a John Oliver ("Last week tonight") item on food wastage. My Father made the comment (which from experience I had to agree with) that fruit off the ground is often the tastiest.

 

Yeah, I don't think the average forest dwelling animal (Human or not) is too fussy about such food.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

It is not a new virus. The reason we (the world outside the areas where infection occurs) are more aware of it today is because of better communication. It is also more likely to spread over a larger distance because of greater numbers of people living together and travelling from one place to another.

 

The Ebola virus appears to be several thousand years old (in the sense of when it diverged from the Marburg virus):

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/8/800.abstract

Presumably their common ancestors had been around for many thousands or millions of years.

 

Thanks for that confirmation. I did not really think that it was a new virus, but was not sure. Science people are really cool when it comes to getting information. Of course, this information also supports my ideas.

 

So mass transit has a down side?

 

Nice use of the strawman there. Almost didn't spot it. Why do you say they are "old" fruit? If you saw nice fresh fruit dropped from a tree would you pick it up and eat it, or climb all the way to the top to get your own?

 

Well I tried. I was trying to give the impression that many species are now 'living in the pockets' of other species. I think that the causes are deforestation, desertification, over population by humans, and then the recent droughts had some serious effects.

 

The droughts of 1968 to 1974 and then the 2010 and 2012 droughts all caused death and mass movement by humans. It seems likely that these droughts also caused movement of other species, and these droughts came a few years before each of the known outbreaks of Ebola. So I think that these droughts, when considered with all of the other factors, caused a "squeezing" of species.

 

That is probably why the rules are so broad and provide no justification. Early humans would have noticed that people are more likely to get ill from certain types of food and, over time, these would have been considered "bad" or "cursed".

If they had known about germs the rules would have talked about the importance of washing your hands and cooking your food properly.

There are a very large number of these food-born diseases and parasites, so I am not sure why you are drawing a connection with the Ebola virus, which is not common in the areas where the rules originated. They are more likely to be caused by hepatitis, salmonella, shigella, vibrio, clostridium, norovirus, and various parasitic worms and protozoa.

 

You did not read Chapters 11 or 15, did you. Don't worry, Strange, reading a few chapters in the Bible will not make you "see the light" or "get religion". It is perfectly safe. It did not cause me to go religious, so you will be OK if you read them.

 

Where is it that you think the rules originated?

 

Gee

 

[Strange]

You did not read Chapters 11 or 15, did you.

 

Once. About 50 years ago. I have forgotten much of the detail. What specifically have I missed?

 

Where is it that you think the rules originated?

 

I assume from the same general area where the rest of the stories come from: Mesopotamia, the "Fertile Crescent", the Levant and the Mediterranean more generally. As well as information shared from more distant cultures - but I guess that much of that wouldn't have seemed so relevant (e.g. warning not to eat plants that are unknown in the region).

 

Of course, similar stories would have existed elsewhere as people learned not to eat certain plants, animals, fungi, etc.

 

So mass transit has a down side?

 

Of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

 

And that is the only reason that AIDS became pandemic; again the virus has been (in some form) around for millennia but only affected a few people locally.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Strange

[Gees]

Pzkpfw;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

Just a few days ago I was telling my Father about a John Oliver ("Last week tonight") item on food wastage. My Father made the comment (which from experience I had to agree with) that fruit off the ground is often the tastiest.

Yeah, I don't think the average forest dwelling animal (Human or not) is too fussy about such food.

 

I take your point. On the other hand, Strange says that this is not a new virus and has been around for thousands of years, and you say that picking up food off the ground is a common occurrence. If these things are true, and this is how the virus is transferred, then Ebola should be a common problem. If Ebola was a common problem in that area, then the people there should have long ago recognized the problem and maybe figured out how to stop it, just like the writer of Leviticus figured it out. Right?

 

Things just don't add up here.

 

But, if we incorporate the droughts into our thinking and consider mass movement by many species, a squeezing effect, and food fights caused by food shortages, then they might add up.

 

Gee

 

 

Strange;

 

Please consider:

 

That is probably why the rules are so broad and provide no justification. Early humans would have noticed that people are more likely to get ill from certain types of food and, over time, these would have been considered "bad" or "cursed".

 

You mean like eating fruit bats? In case you didn't notice, your argument is not flying.

 

If they had known about germs the rules would have talked about the importance of washing your hands and cooking your food properly.

This argument is not flying either. If you had read the link, you would know that they were not only required to wash their hands, but were also required to change their clothes, and required to wash their utensils, bowls, and everything that the blood or body fluid of the "unclean" meat touched. And a bucket with a rag would not do, as they were required to wash things in a large volume of water. These rules were not "broad", they were damned specific.

Consider the following comment that a member of another forum, Forest Dump, made regarding this same issue in one of my threads:

"Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine around 1790 by noting that people who got cowpox were more likely to survive smallpox. So he injected a kid with cowpox and then smallpox and when the kid survived, he was a hero although many still strongly protested compulsory vaccinations (and still do).

'Germ theory' came much later in the late 19th century after the increased use of the microscope. Joseph Lister started washing his surgery instruments in carbolic acid as well as the rooms and wounds but still didn't wash his hands or change his clothes. Edward Koch, again very late in the 19th century, did more experimental work such as growing TB cultures in Petri dishes and doing a statistical analysis."

So your argument that knowing about germs would make them act more hygienic is invalid, since they were more fastidious than the scientists, who did know about germs, in the 19th century.

The argument about cooking food properly is not much better. Remember, these people did not run down to the local grocer to pick up packaged meat. They had to kill, bleed, skin, and process the meat, so germs and viruses could transfer well before cooking it. Also, I am not sure that they knew how to read a meat thermometer -- internal temperature of 170 degrees is recommended.

So their only options were to wash everything carefully and to avoid meats that could facilitate a transfer of illness.

 

There are a very large number of these food-born diseases and parasites, so I am not sure why you are drawing a connection with the Ebola virus, which is not common in the areas where the rules originated. They are more likely to be caused by hepatitis, salmonella, shigella, vibrio, clostridium, norovirus, and various parasitic worms and protozoa.

 

What I am looking for are the diseases that are contagious after the original person is infected and can cause an epidemic. Which of the above do that?

 

Once. About 50 years ago. I have forgotten much of the detail. What specifically have I missed?

 

By not reading Leviticus? Mostly you have missed the right to speak intelligently on the subject. I found the link, scanned/read the whole damned book, actually two of them, noted the chapters that applied to this thread, and stated in this thread which chapters were relevant and why, so it would be easier for you. I can't make you read it.

 

I assume from the same general area where the rest of the stories come from: Mesopotamia, the "Fertile Crescent", the Levant and the Mediterranean more generally. As well as information shared from more distant cultures - but I guess that much of that wouldn't have seemed so relevant (e.g. warning not to eat plants that are unknown in the region).

Of course, similar stories would have existed elsewhere as people learned not to eat certain plants, animals, fungi, etc.

 

The first six Books of the Bible are not relevant to "where the rest of the stories" came from. These are the books that were purportedly handed down by Moses, who was purportedly from Egypt. The rest of the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people written by various authors. The Books of Law are some of the ones handed down by Moses, and are the only Books in the Bible that I study.

 

It is interesting that you mentioned plants. Many plants are poisonous, so one would think that they would be in the Books of Law, but I don't remember much mention of plants. Another oddity.

 

Of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

And that is the only reason that AIDS became pandemic; again the virus has been (in some form) around for millennia but only affected a few people locally.

 

Thank you for the link. I learned a lot about the flu and epidemics.

 

So it seems that we are in agreement that the mass movement of people/species can turn a small problem into an epidemic. Since the Jewish people were a nomadic people, it is possible that they would be interested in this information and wary of the results that mass movement could present.

 

I noted in your link that there was bird flu, canine flu, equine flu, and swine flu, but is there a flu or pandemic disease connected to animals that "have a cloven hoof and chew the cud" or fish that "have fins and scales"? It may be worth noting that these are species that can be eaten rare or even raw.

 

Also are there any pandemic diseases that are associated with plants, where the disease becomes contagious between people after infection occurs?

 

Thank you again for the links. I await your response.

 

Gee

[Strange]

On the other hand, Strange says that this is not a new virus and has been around for thousands of years, and you say that picking up food off the ground is a common occurrence. If these things are true, and this is how the virus is transferred, then Ebola should be a common problem.

 

Not necessarily. It depends a lot on many other factors: the levels of virus present in bats, how easily primates acquire it, how readily/frequently they transfer it to humans, etc. Disease transmission, especially between species, is more complex than you think.

 

If Ebola was a common problem in that area, then the people there should have long ago recognized the problem and maybe figured out how to stop it, just like the writer of Leviticus figured it out. Right?

 

Not necessarily. One difference is that food-borne pathogens typically cause illness within hours. Therefore it is quite easy to associate the illness with the food. And this seems to be a fairly innate mechanism; I know a number of people who have gone off some type of food because they were ill (for unrelated reasons) shortly after eating it.

 

On the other hand, the incubation period for Ebola and related diseases is days or weeks. How is anyone supposed to connect getting ill to something they did 3 weeks ago?

 

Also, as you say, the disease is transmitted from person to person (as are many diseases). As people are in frequent contact anyway and not all of them get ill, there is no reason for them to associate contact with the spread of the disease (look how long it took for Semmelweiss's ideas to be accepted) There is therefore no reason for people to understand that there might be a "patient zero" and figure out how they got infected.

 

By not reading Leviticus? Mostly you have missed the right to speak intelligently on the subject.

 

As I said, I have read it. But thanks for the insights into my ability to comment. Apparently you can't be bothered to explain why I should read it again. So I can't be bothered to read it.

 

How much have you read on virology, disease transmission, food born pathogens? Do you have the right to "speak intelligently" on these subjects?

 

The first six Books of the Bible are not relevant to "where the rest of the stories" came from. These are the books that were purportedly handed down by Moses, who was purportedly from Egypt.

 

Maybe, but much of the material pre-dates that. I would stick with the evidence, rather than what is claimed in the source.

 

It is interesting that you mentioned plants. Many plants are poisonous, so one would think that they would be in the Books of Law, but I don't remember much mention of plants. Another oddity.

 

How many of those poisonous plants are also good food sources? Maybe it was felt that the risk of people attempting to eat poisonous plants was so low it wasn't worth mentioning.

 

It would be interesting to know if South American religious traditions include warnings about the need to cook cassava, for example. I have no idea.

[John Cuthber]

The religious "laws" about what you can eat are not so much about food hygiene as about distinguishing "in group" from "out group".

If eating pork was a bad idea then the Chinese would be extinct; as it happens they are rather numerous.

 

Leviticus almost certainly didn't know about ebola.

Presumably, he "missed the right to speak intelligently on the subject."

Since much the same would be true of the author of Deuteronomy, the thread's pointless.

 

in a world where many or most people were frequently ill, it would be substantially impossible to distinguish ebola from other diseases, never mind get a handle on what caused them.

A colleague of mine is currently out in Sierra Leone working with the international relief effort. His role is to check blood samples for ebola (and also malaria since they might as well treat that when they find it).

The point is that, even in a situation where people do know about ebola- it takes laboratory testing to confirm that it's the cause of sickness. So it's silly to imagine that people could identify the cause of it 4000 years ago or whatever.

[Strange]

I heard about some interesting research on the genetics of smell (and therefore taste). They had isolated a single gene which affects how people sense a particular compound. Some people think it sweet, others find it disugusting, some are hardly aware of it. It turns out that this compound is present in pork and, not surprisingly, most people in areas where pork is not eaten have the variant that means they find this compound unpleasant.

(http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/article/?id=14799)

Edit: or it may be the other way round: where they do not have that gene, is where pigs were domesticated.

 

So the laws against pork may simply be based on genetic chance (and then overgeneralised to other animals).

 

The laws against seafood may be based on the idea that if you are desert nomads, then eating seafood might not be sensible.

 

Few, if any of these ideas are really testable, though.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

I take your point. On the other hand, Strange says that this is not a new virus and has been around for thousands of years, and you say that picking up food off the ground is a common occurrence. If these things are true, and this is how the virus is transferred, then Ebola should be a common problem. If Ebola was a common problem in that area, then the people there should have long ago recognized the problem and maybe figured out how to stop it, just like the writer of Leviticus figured it out. Right?

 

Things just don't add up here.

 

 

Because you've changed what has been said.

 

- The common cold is a virus and we haven't solved that particular problem, even though we have guidelines on how to limit the spread of it, so the notion that we should not have issues with some other virus doesn't add up.

 

- Where did you get the idea that picking food up off the ground is how Ebola is spread? Nobody has suggested that.

 

- The original discussion was about picking fruit up off the ground, not food in general. Another straw man.

 

So it seems that we are in agreement that the mass movement of people/species can turn a small problem into an epidemic. Since the Jewish people were a nomadic people, it is possible that they would be interested in this information and wary of the results that mass movement could present.

 

From the link: "Modern transportation systems made it easier for soldiers, sailors, and civilian travelers to spread the disease". The nomadic Jews of thousands of years ago did not have access to modern transportation. It's not just mass movement. It's mass, rapid movement, where "rapid" is defined in terms of the lifetime of the virus infection cycle. If e.g. the virus runs its course in a few days, then movement that takes weeks that isn't going to aid much in transmission.

[Gees]

Swansont;

I am going to answer your post first, so please consider the following:

Quote

- The common cold is a virus and we haven't solved that particular problem, even though we have guidelines on how to limit the spread of it, so the notion that we should not have issues with some other virus doesn't add up.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Regarding the "common cold", consider that we have been chipping away at it for years. There was a time when having a cough could mean the common cold, flu, allergies, TB, black lung, or even lung cancer, so I don't think that anyone can say that we are not working on it. If the common cold were more deadly, then I suspect that we would be working even harder.

Quote

- Where did you get the idea that picking food up off the ground is how Ebola is spread? Nobody has suggested that.

Actually, everyone seemed to for a while there. I am surprised that you have not heard it. I think that I first read it on my Homepage site in the Scientific American, but read it in other news articles also. Since I don't trust the magazine, Scientific American, because I have read too much in it that is more speculation than science, I went to the WHO (World Health Organization) site and also found that explanation there. So I thought it might be a real theory.

Later I read an article that hypothesized that there was a tree in the area where the bats lived that may have been the source of the virus. Didn't trust this either, so I went back to the WHO site to confirm it. At that point, I could not find anything in the WHO site that verified either explanation. The WHO site is constantly being updated, so I suspect that either both ideas were thrown out, or I simply could not find the explanation.

The only confirmation that I found, this last time, was that the virus is carried by the bats and has infected primates and humans. There was also information that some small animals had been infected, but nothing that indicated widespread infection in any other specie -- and there was nothing, at that site, on the rumor that fish had been infected.

I did find confirmation that ingesting other species is how the virus transfers specie to specie. It was this idea that caused me to consider that primates and bats both eat fruit, and a shortage of food could cause food fights, which is what led me to considering droughts.

Quote

- The original discussion was about picking fruit up off the ground, not food in general. Another straw man.

No. In the original discussion, the core idea was about nature's ability to self balance. We know that nature does this because we study ecosystems. We also know that a lot of this self balancing is controlled through pheromones, bacteria, micro-organisms, and maybe viruses. This thread considers that disease may be one of the ways that an ecosystem balances, and that disease can be caused by ingesting it through various foods.

This thread also considers the possibility that mass movement of species could possibly cause a local disease to become a pandemic disease. It also considers the possibility that this is not new information and has been known for thousands of years.

Quote

From the link: "Modern transportation systems made it easier for soldiers, sailors, and civilian travelers to spread the disease". The nomadic Jews of thousands of years ago did not have access to modern transportation. It's not just mass movement. It's mass, rapid movement, where "rapid" is defined in terms of the lifetime of the virus infection cycle. If e.g. the virus runs its course in a few days, then movement that takes weeks that isn't going to aid much in transmission.

I am not sure that "rapid" movement is necessary. Consider the history (8) of smallpox in the following link.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

 

Gee

[swansont]

Swansont;

 

I am going to answer your post first, so please consider the following:

 

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

Regarding the "common cold", consider that we have been chipping away at it for years. There was a time when having a cough could mean the common cold, flu, allergies, TB, black lung, or even lung cancer, so I don't think that anyone can say that we are not working on it. If the common cold were more deadly, then I suspect that we would be working even harder.

 

I was rebutting your naive claim that we would have a Liviticus-esque way of effectively dealing with Ebola, considering that we don't have one for the common cold. "Working on it" is beside the point. Modern medicine is not the same solution as an abomination in Leviticus.

 

Later I read an article that hypothesized that there was a tree in the area where the bats lived that may have been the source of the virus. Didn't trust this either, so I went back to the WHO site to confirm it. At that point, I could not find anything in the WHO site that verified either explanation. The WHO site is constantly being updated, so I suspect that either both ideas were thrown out, or I simply could not find the explanation.

 

When was it there? You can look for an archived page. But if you knew the explanation was wrong, then you shouldn't have cited it.

 

No. In the original discussion, the core idea was about nature's ability to self balance.

 

The original discussion regarding picking food up off the ground only mentioned fruit. Apologies for thinking the context was obvious.

[Strange]

If the common cold were more deadly, then I suspect that we would be working even harder.

 

Flu is deadly; it kills millions. But we still don't have a cure.

 

 

Actually, everyone seemed to for a while there. I am surprised that you have not heard it.

 

You seem to be getting confused between how a, primarily, animal disease can get transferred to a human verus how it spreads once it is in the human population.

 

But, for the many reasons given, this is a totally different scenario from the possible health risks or other reasons to be averse to particular foods.

 

 

I am not sure that "rapid" movement is necessary. Consider the history (8) of smallpox in the following link.

 

So it took thousands of years to spread around the world. How is that relevant?

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

The religious "laws" about what you can eat are not so much about food hygiene as about distinguishing "in group" from "out group".

 

This is NOT about religion. I do not give two hoots about the author or "God" ideas, and am simply considering the history.

 

If you can read Chapter 15 in the link that I provided from Leviticus and still believe that this is not about food hygiene, then you are not paying attention. Either that, or you can not get the "religious" ideas out of your head long enough to simply look at the facts.

 

The question is, "What criteria was used to distinguish 'in group' from 'out group', and why?"

 

If eating pork was a bad idea then the Chinese would be extinct; as it happens they are rather numerous.

 

That is an invalid assumption. If your assumption were true, then Americans would also be extinct.

 

I remember when my Grandmother was teaching me to cook; she always stated that pork must be cooked through and never served rare. Of course, she learned to cook before we were putting all kinds of antibiotics into our food animals. But it is interesting to note that the WHO also states that cooking the meats thoroughly can mitigate the transference of viruses and recommends thorough cooking of meats like primates and bats.

 

It is also interesting to note that chicken now comes with a warning label to cook it to an internal temperature of 170 degrees. I had never heard of that 30 or so years ago, so this is a new problem or a new solution to a problem.

 

Maybe the Chinese also have Grandmothers, and maybe the Chinese can also learn to cook their food properly. Also consider that China is a long way from the Mediterranean and is locked by mountains and ocean in many directions, so it has its own unique ecosystem.

 

in a world where many or most people were frequently ill, it would be substantially impossible to distinguish ebola from other diseases, never mind get a handle on what caused them.

A colleague of mine is currently out in Sierra Leone working with the international relief effort. His role is to check blood samples for ebola (and also malaria since they might as well treat that when they find it).

The point is that, even in a situation where people do know about ebola- it takes laboratory testing to confirm that it's the cause of sickness. So it's silly to imagine that people could identify the cause of it 4000 years ago or whatever.

 

You may want to read the Smallpox link that I put in my post to Swansont. In that link you will find that India was immunizing against smallpox in 1,000 BC -- that would be 3,000 years ago. What is silly is the assumption that because people had no science, they also had no brains.

 

Gee

[Acme]

...

I remember when my Grandmother was teaching me to cook; she always stated that pork must be cooked through and never served rare. ...

It is not viruses or bacteria that necessitate cooking pork thoroughly, it is a parasite that encysts in the meat. This is not to say viruses and bacteria cannot contaminate pork during processing as with other meats.

 

Taenia solium

Taenia solium is the pork tapeworm belonging to cyclophyllid cestodes in the family Taeniidae. It is an intestinal zoonotic parasite found throughout the world, and is most prevalent in countries where pork is eaten. ...

[John Cuthber]

"

Quote

If eating pork was a bad idea then the Chinese would be extinct; as it happens they are rather numerous.

That is an invalid assumption. If your assumption were true, then Americans would also be extinct. "

That was exactly my point.

The assumption must be false.

So, since the assumption that eating-pork-is-bad for you must be false, it can't be the reason for the exclusion of pork from the diet.

[Strange]

This is NOT about religion. I do not give two hoots about the author or "God" ideas, and am simply considering the history.

 

You are referencing a religious text, so why shouldn't that fact be mentioned?

 

That is an invalid assumption. If your assumption were true, then Americans would also be extinct.

 

That was not an assumption. It was a logical statement used to show that your premise was false.

 

I remember when my Grandmother was teaching me to cook; she always stated that pork must be cooked through and never served rare. Of course, she learned to cook before we were putting all kinds of antibiotics into our food animals.

 

What do antibiotics used in farming have to do with it?

 

It is also interesting to note that chicken now comes with a warning label to cook it to an internal temperature of 170 degrees. I had never heard of that 30 or so years ago, so this is a new problem or a new solution to a problem.

 

It may be true that there is a greater risk of infection due to intensive farming, but it has always been considered unsafe to eat undercooked chicken.

 

Maybe the Chinese also have Grandmothers, and maybe the Chinese can also learn to cook their food properly. Also consider that China is a long way from the Mediterranean and is locked by mountains and ocean in many directions, so it has its own unique ecosystem.

 

What does this have to do with the topic? Or are you just agreeing that all cultures have "folk rules" about food preparation? Sometimes these get put in religious texts and become "law" (to the subset of people who think anything in the texts must be taken literally and never re-interpreted).

 

You may want to read the Smallpox link that I put in my post to Swansont. In that link you will find that India was immunizing against smallpox in 1,000 BC -- that would be 3,000 years ago

 

Again, how is this relevant?

 

What is silly is the assumption that because people had no science, they also had no brains.

 

Who is making that assumption?

[Gees]

Strange;

 

We were having a fairly productive discussion until about half way down the page. You brought up some interesting points that I wanted to discuss, and I had some thoughts that I wanted to share and get your opinion on.

 

But that all changed when the "click-it squad" joined the thread. Now there are too many off-point responses and straw man arguments for me to address. I am still very slow at writing responses, so I will never be able to explain my position or reasoning faster than people will be able to pick it apart. It is no longer a discussion, it is just picking.

 

Since you are the only member in this thread that even has a clue as to my points, and you refuse to read one of the links, I do not believe that I can learn anything here.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Gee

[Strange]

But that all changed when the "click-it squad" joined the thread. Now there are too many off-point responses and straw man arguments for me to address. I am still very slow at writing responses, so I will never be able to explain my position or reasoning faster than people will be able to pick it apart. It is no longer a discussion, it is just picking.

 

It is a discussion forum. People are discussing your points. You seem upset because they are pointing out the many ways you are wrong. Perhaps that is why your answers have been getting more irrational and seemingly with no connection to the subject.

 

 

Since you are the only member in this thread that even has a clue as to my points, and you refuse to read one of the links, I do not believe that I can learn anything here.

 

You gave me no reason to read it again. Nevertheless, I went back and read Ch. 11. Now what? It didn't tell me anything new.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber;

 

 

If you can read Chapter 15 in the link that I provided from Leviticus and still believe that this is not about food hygiene, then you are not paying attention. E

 

OK, so I had a look.

This "When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean." in an age where women did all the cooking isn't and can not be about food hygiene.

ditto all the bits from 1 through 13

There's quite a lot of nonsense that ends "and be unclean until the even." which is absurd- the arrival of evening does not magically alter anything.

Then there's a lot of stuff essentially about periods and semen.

Plenty of opportunity for "ugh factors" but not actually a great risk to food

Seriously- you think this "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even." is about food?

Remind me not to go to your place for a meal.

 

And there's no sensible way to see this as food hygiene either

"And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

³⁰ And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.".

Did you actually read chapter 15 in the reference you cited, and, if so, were you paying attention?

[DrP]

"And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even."

 

Washing at least your hands at least seems like pretty standard personal hygiene advice really. lol.

[John Cuthber]

 

Washing at least your hands at least seems like pretty standard personal hygiene advice really. lol.

Not my field, but I understand that there's evidence that it's fit for human consumption.

Joking aside- that means it's not strictly a food hygiene issue.

Gross perhaps, but not infectious or toxic.

[Strange]

Plenty of opportunity for "ugh factors" but not actually a great risk to food

The disgust reaction to bodily fluids may well be an evolutionary response to the fact that they can be ways in which disease spreads (including Ebola, to bring this back to the OP).

[imatfaal]

The disgust reaction to bodily fluids may well be an evolutionary response to the fact that they can be ways in which disease spreads (including Ebola, to bring this back to the OP).

 

evolutionary response or shared cultural learning?

[Strange]

 

evolutionary response or shared cultural learning?

 

I believe there is evidence showing that it is at least partly innate. But I'm sure there are cultural factors as well.