God and parasitic disease

[PaulSacramento]

We know that organisms change and adapt to their environment.
They change in the way that is best for THEM, not for other species.
That some viruses and parasites have come to be doesn't mean they always have been, simply that they are this way now or have been this way for sometime.
It is quite possible that many species that we see and view as "horrid" simply have "evolved" that way due to the environment they are in.
An environment created by Man in his fallen state.

[KBCid]

KBCid, I'm with zoegirl on this one. From the link that was posted:

Genesis states that life on earth was created 'perfect' and designed to live forever. Genesis states no such thing. If that is in the second sentence of the article, I really don't hold much credence in the rest of the article.

I agree that a word for word agreement cannot be found which is where I think interpretational license occurs on their part. However, when you read;

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

You need to ask yourself just what would be "very good" from Gods point of view? have the writers on that site overstepped the boundaries by representing it the way they have or does "very good" have an implication within the range of what they state? If you think about it many people imply that ex nihilo creation occured and that isn't specifically stated in genesis either. It comes down to how much interpretational license each interpreter allows.

Aside from the possible problem with POV's for written interpretations, the important part that I was pointing to on their site was the empirical work performed in the hyperbaric chamber resulting in snake venom losing toxicity. The concept is that the initial earth environment was different than now and that those condition changes since that time have changed things about creatures in a way that makes them seem more destructive when in fact it may just be a side effect from the running down of the environment itself from its initial state.

Is there any chance you could look specifically at that part of the site dealing with the empirical tests?

[zoegirl]

I looked at the site, and I couldn't find any of his emprical tests:

Specifically:

How did he test for toxicity of the venom (did he? it looked like he just examined it's structure)

Did he test for overall fitness of the snake (metabolism, digestive, reproductive health)

Has he done any tests for the non-toxic venom? what else does it do? Many venoms are neurotoxins, which mean they interact with the nerves and their physiology. Has he done any tests on the activity of the toxin? How does it work with the neurons, what changes it?


Philosophical questions:

How do you know that the atmosphere was different? it's pure speculation that the atmosphere was different, and we certainly don't know whether there was more pressure or less pressure.

What would be the purpose of non-toxic venom? Since we are so into the "perfect" reason for having something, what would be the purpose of a less distorted venom?

Why have heat sensors to detect prey? Do these change with the hyperbaric chambers?

For that matter, what's the purpose of having fangs with structures similar to hypodermic needles? (unless the fangs disappeared in the hyperbaric chambers)

Just a few questions.

From the research i have gathered, he has not actually tested the toxicity of the venom, which makes them rather ...um...erroneous claims...

In the late 90's, research was performed on venomous copperhead snakes living in the biosphere. Their venom was altered at the molecular level, and it is now known that the protein production by the snake was radically altered. Some proteins were inhibited, others enhanced. Some proteins produced in the venom were completely eradicated and others produced which the snakes never produced before. Some have speculated that the "new" venom may not be toxic, but this has not yet been verified. Physical changes are visible in the electron micrographs (left).

[KBCid]

I looked at the site, and I couldn't find any of his emprical tests...
...From the research i have gathered, he has not actually tested the toxicity of the venom, which makes them rather ...um...erroneous claims...

Apparently there has been sufficient empirical testing to convince the patent office since that very experiment was also part of the patent.

"....As mentioned previously, the apparatus 10 allows for the creation of a closed ecological system in accordance with the above, thereby creating an environment conducive to the manufacture of exceptional pharmaceuticals for treating diseases and ailments for which safe and effective pharmaceuticals have not yet been discovered. Such exceptional pharmaceuticals may be obtained through natural organic production of living systems themselves or may be obtained by mixing various chemicals. For example, referring now to FIGS. 9 and 10, there can be seen a scanning electron microscope view of snake venom obtained from a Copperhead snake living under ordinary conditions found on earth (FIG. 9) and a scanning electron microscope view of snake venom obtained from the same snake, after the snake lived in an apparatus 10 housing a closed ecological system as is set forth above. Those skilled in the art will recognize the markedly improved characteristics of the venom shown in FIG. 10 obtained from the Copperhead snake that inhabited the closed ecological system of the present apparatus 10 for four weeks. Snake venom shown in FIG. 10 has been experimented with and found to have medicinal properties such as decreasing the size and occurrence of cancerous tumors, and providing relief from emotional illnesses. It is theorized that the toxicity of snake venom in the present invention would be lowered, if not eliminated, and the coherent structured chemical formation as shown would lead to immediate assimilation into patient receptors." http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/59355 ... ption.html

However, you need to understand That I am not promoting that a single experiment proves what he is saying. what I am promoting here is that he has provided enough evidence for his assertion that it warranted a patent and I think further study. He has defined empirical methods to either prove or disprove his claims. Further, let me provide other references which are also finding some significant results when using these chambers for snake venom treatments;

Hyperbaric Oxygen Research
Posted Feb 17 2011 by admin in New Treatments, Research,
By Dr. David A. Steenblock
Personalized Regenerative Medicine
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
1-800-300-1063
http://www.stemcellmd.org/02/17/researc ... esearch-2/

Snake bite
Beneficial for preventing infection and enhancing healing – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226390
Suggested for venomous snake bite – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226389

"Hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of puff adder (Bitis arietans) bite.
CASE REPORT: A 26-year-old Austrian man was bitten by a puff adder that he kept illegally in his home. On admission he showed signs of local and systemic toxicity. He was stabilized with antivenom, intravenous fluids, catecholamines and packed platelets. Hyperbaric oxygenation was begun due to incipient compartment syndrome on the second day and continued until the eleventh day, when the patient had recovered completely and could be discharged.

DISCUSSION: The venom of Bitis arietans can cause serious systemic and local complications. Our patient suffered from both. Systemic signs included hemodynamic as well as hemostaseologic impairment. Local effects included swelling and incipient compartment syndrome. Systemic and local treatment, including hyperbaric oxygenation, effected a full recovery. We suggest that, whenever feasible, hyperbaric oxygenation should be considered as adjunct treatment in snake bites to avert adverse outcomes."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226389

With results like this as anecdotal evidence for a positive effect occuring I would say we have a reasonable cause to look further into Baugh's claims.

[Ivellious]

My biggest problem with his claims is that his chamber supposedly creates an environment that is what is described in genesis...But where is he getting this information about pre-flood Earth? What is his real basis for knowing what Earth was like? I mean, studies have shown that putting animals through different atmospheric conditions can alter their growth and lifespans...that's not new. I'm just not sure where he gets off saying this is some demonstration of his claim that things didn't die in Eden.

[zoegirl]

The fact that he was given a patent does not validate the findings of the device, nor does it in any way give his theories credibility. There are plenty of patented devices that were pure rubbish.

Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy, in the article cited, is nothing new. In the examples of the snake bite, the reason why hyperbaric oxygenation therapy works is not because it changes the toxicity, but because it helps the damaged tissue heal. In all of the cases the patients were given antivenom before the therapy, which means the hyperbaric oxygen had nothing to do with the toxicity.

He would need to do far more research to validate his findings, something which he doesn't seem to be doing.

[sandy_mcd]

For example, referring now to FIGS. 9 and 10, there can be seen a scanning electron microscope view of snake venom obtained from a Copperhead snake living under ordinary conditions found on earth (FIG. 9) and a scanning electron microscope view of snake venom obtained from the same snake, after the snake lived in an apparatus 10 housing a closed ecological system as is set forth above. Those skilled in the art will recognize the markedly improved characteristics of the venom shown in FIG. 10 obtained from the Copperhead snake that inhabited the closed ecological system of the present apparatus 10 for four weeks. Snake venom shown in FIG. 10 has been experimented with and found to have medicinal properties such as decreasing the size and occurrence of cancerous tumors, and providing relief from emotional illnesses. It is theorized that the toxicity of snake venom in the present invention would be lowered, if not eliminated, and the coherent structured chemical formation as shown would lead to immediate assimilation into patient receptors." //www.patentstorm.us/patents/5935516/description.html

As zoegirl and others have mentioned, there is not much real evidence here. Forget the touted medicinal properties, what are the pictures of snake venom supposed to represent?
What is the magnification? These look like 3-dimensional frameworks of some solid. How is this snake venom? How was it processed? How does this structure affect the properties of the molecules? I really love this line

Those skilled in the art will recognize the markedly improved characteristics of the venom shown in FIG. 10

I can't find any similar pictures for any snake venom anywhere.
No, without further explanation there is no reason to take any of this seriously.

[KBCid]

Philosophical questions:
How do you know that the atmosphere was different? it's pure speculation that the atmosphere was different, and we certainly don't know

whether there was more pressure or less pressure.

Well.... The bible says so;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

How it was different is what they are trying to determine. Here is a site with references to empirical studies that appear to back the idea;

The water vapor canopy hypothesis would neatly explain yet another observed anomaly…too much water in Earth’s upper atmosphere. NASA satellites have confirmed far more hydroxyl in the hydrosphere than current models predict. The parent molecule of hydroxyl (OH) is water (H2O). Because ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks down water in Earth’s upper atmosphere into hydroxyl and hydrogen, a large amount of water must have previously existed. Some have proposed a constant influx of mini-comets as a source for the mysterious water, but that theory has been strongly criticized as unworkable. (Matthews, Robert, New Scientist, July, 1997, pp. 26-27.)
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/ear ... tmosphere/

Other interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen and a denser atmosphere. Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air bubbles that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. “The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadrupole mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today.” Landis believes that the reduction in oxygen could have led to the dinosaur’s demise. (Discover, February, 1988, p. 12.) “One implication is that the atmospheric pressure of the Earth would have been much greater during the Cretaceous era, when the bubbles formed in the resin. A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said.” (Anderson, Ian, “Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen,” New Scientist, vol. 116, 1987, p. 25.) A Yale study published in the March 3, 2000 issue of Science independently confirms the high levels of oxygen present in the earth’s distant past. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/ear ... tmosphere/

If you feel the referenced evidence from Genesispark is also not up to par then consider this one;

News in Science
Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere
Thursday, 29 March 2012 Anna Salleh
...Som and colleagues used imprints from ancient raindrops to find out the atmospheric pressure of the Earth 2.7 billion years ago...
...They estimate that the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at that time was no more than twice what it is today.
"This estimate will allow scientist to make more precise calculations of what type of gases were present in the early Earth's atmosphere," says Som. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 464923.htm

I'm sure there is more to be found in this context.

What would be the purpose of non-toxic venom? Since we are so into the "perfect" reason for having something, what would be the purpose of a less distorted venom? Why have heat sensors to detect prey? Do these change with the hyperbaric chambers? For that matter, what's the purpose of having fangs with structures similar to hypodermic needles? (unless the fangs disappeared in the

hyperbaric chambers)

I had wondered that myself and then I read this;

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Indeed I wonder how a "sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." yet it is written that "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain". How might we explain this? I tell you that I cannot fathom how but, it is quite a specific statement that all of these creatures will exist and in a state of not hurting or destroying. So either we are being lied to or maybe there is something we don't quite understand.

[KBCid]

The fact that he was given a patent does not validate the findings of the device, nor does it in any way give his theories credibility. There are plenty of patented devices that were pure rubbish.

Well of course it would not be a validation of the experiment. Thats why science requires repeatability to confirm such allegations. However by providing the method used it is wide open to subsequent empirical testing. At no time does he propose a supernatural event has occured. This is the nature of how proper science operates. Someone does a test, presents some evidence, provides the method for the results and then at some point someone else tries to reproduce the results. If they succeed in getting the same results then there would be empirical backing for the first experiment and further incentive to dig deeper. No one should dismiss something so easily redoable out of hand.

Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy, in the article cited, is nothing new. In the examples of the snake bite, the reason why hyperbaric oxygenation therapy works is not because it changes the toxicity, but because it helps the damaged tissue heal. In all of the cases the patients were given antivenom before the therapy, which means the hyperbaric oxygen had nothing to do with the toxicity.
He would need to do far more research to validate his findings, something which he doesn't seem to be doing.

The "assumption" of why hyperbaric oxygenation therapy works is that it helps the damaged tissue heal. As I pointed out the evidence is anecdotal, since they never tested whether it had anything to do with reducing the toxicity. All they know is that it helps and they "guess'' it is entirely the action of oxygen under pressure helping to heal.
I do absolutely agree that this line of reasoning requires far more empirical study. The great thing is that any one of us could attempt to reproduce the experiment and actually test for toxicity. Nothing fancy and no need to invoke anything beyond scientific inquiry. right?

[KBCid]

No, without further explanation there is no reason to take any of this seriously.

A review of the Case report: Hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of puff adder (Bitis arietans) bite itself has some interesting points made in it.

"The favorable, almost immediate, impact of HBo2 on the local reaction was impressive, though, and exceeded the one usually seen when treating a post-traumatic compartment syndrome. If this effect is due to a specific interaction with the snake’s toxin or its degradation products remains hypothetical, because there are neither clinical nor experimental reports on HBo2 in this indication as yet." http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/x ... sequence=1

Another gem of information that I found which shows promise was this one;

Medical Articles
HBOT…What Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Can Do For Your Patients
by Ronald Lyman, DVM, DACVIM
from University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine August 19th 2011

Snakebite
Snakebite pit viper envenomation is the classic example of the clinical situation where the anti-inflammatory, tissue sparing and tissue healing effects of HBOT come together to create dramatic changes in many patients. If a canine snakebite patient is rapidly placed into an HBOT chamber within a few hours of the bite event, grossly visible swelling is often markedly reduced during and after the treatment session [with or without anti-venon administration]. http://animalemergency.net/hyperbaric_oxygen.php

That one tends to let the air out of the anti-venom argument. Another empirical study has inferred a possible "inactivation" effect on another type of venom;

Brown Recluse Spider Envenomation: A Prospective Trial of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
...Our preliminary observations using homogenized skin + venom pretreated with HBO might suggest that the HBO mechanism in this injury could be some inactivation of a venom component...
...We also cannot exclude the possibility that the mechanical action of the bubbles or the environment of the chamber also might have had an inactivating effect on the venom... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3738.x/pdf

This of course doesn't prove that venom becomes less toxic in the chamber but, it is considered by these scientists as a possibility worth investigating. So, ultimately anyone can dismiss the whole concept since there are not a multitude of studies backing it but, for me there is enough evidence to continue to dig deeper and get well backed experimental data.

[sandy_mcd]

This of course doesn't prove that venom becomes less toxic in the chamber but, it is considered by these scientists as a possibility worth investigating. So, ultimately anyone can dismiss the whole concept since there are not a multitude of studies backing it but, for me there is enough evidence to continue to dig deeper and get well backed experimental data.

I am not discarding the effectiveness of HBO, for which KBCid has provided legitimate scientific references. I am discarding Baugh's unsupported structural-modification detoxifying theory. Despite searching, i could find no information on the art of interpreting venom photographs anywhere. The first link provided by KBCid in the prior post says nothing about venom becoming less toxic via HBO; the effect instead is

At this level, oxygen shows pharmacological action such as prevention of reperfusion injury, reduction of edema and reversal of sublethal tissue damage.

An explanation of the SEM venom pictures and some discussion of the structure-toxicity relationship is necessary in order to evaluate the claims made. I haven't found anything remotely related - the closest is http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1429 which is rather negative.

[zoegirl]

This of course doesn't prove that venom becomes less toxic in the chamber but, it is considered by these scientists as a possibility worth investigating. So, ultimately anyone can dismiss the whole concept since there are not a multitude of studies backing it but, for me there is enough evidence to continue to dig deeper and get well backed experimental data.

I am not discarding the effectiveness of HBO, for which KBCid has provided legitimate scientific references. I am discarding Baugh's unsupported structural-modification detoxifying theory. Despite searching, i could find no information on the art of interpreting venom photographs anywhere. The first link provided by KBCid in the prior post says nothing about venom becoming less toxic via HBO; the effect instead is

At this level, oxygen shows pharmacological action such as prevention of reperfusion injury, reduction of edema and reversal of sublethal tissue damage.

An explanation of the SEM venom pictures and some discussion of the structure-toxicity relationship is necessary in order to evaluate the claims made. I haven't found anything remotely related - the closest is http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1429 which is rather negative.

Right and what Baugh seems to fail to do is ever explain his conclusions and substantiate the claims.

[KBCid]

I am not discarding the effectiveness of HBO, for which KBCid has provided legitimate scientific references. I am discarding Baugh's unsupported structural-modification detoxifying theory.

Thought Baugh's theory is currently unsuported by sufficient empirical testing it is after all simply a theory of what at least one person considers a valid line of inquiry. Hasn't all of scientific inquiry begun with a theory and followed by testing for evidence to back it?. Sandy consider being alive when Newton first theorised about gravity;

In the year 1666 he retired again from Cambridge ... to his mother in Lincolnshire & while he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity (which brought an apple from a tree to the ground) was not limited to a certain distance from earth, but that this power must extend much further than was usually thought. Why not as high as the Moon thought he to himself & that if so, that must influence her motion & perhaps retain her in her orbit, whereupon he fell a-calculating what would be the effect of that superposition... ( Keesing, R.G., The History of Newton's apple tree, Contemporary Physics, 39, 377-91, 1998)

This was the beginning of his theory and he later expanded the theory by asserting that gravity was a universal force. What he proposed had little to no empirical backing and in fact he had reservations about his own theory;

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a
distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s ... 27s_theory

Would you have also discarded Newtons theories because of its initial non-support?

Baugh in his theory appears to be trying to make a connection between biblical understanding and scientific even though he has very little in the way of empirical testing. The part that makes me want to give his theory a chance at validation is that he appears to be making a serious attempt at understanding why things are the way they are now as compared to what might be interpreted from biblical texts for how the environment was to begin with.
My own understanding from the bible infers that all the creatures formed in the beginning did not hurt or kill which if Baugh's theory is any indication he agrees with and this may be the entire reason for him theorising less toxicity.
One of the things that I have studied a bit is that the 3 dimensional shapes of proteins affects their function. This may be an aspect that Baugh also understands and may be why he infers a toxicity change based on the pictures produced from his experiments which show structural changes. This to me would be well within logical inference to assert a possible change of toxicity since the current evidence from biology has empirically proven protein shape affects function and if current shapes produce toxic results then what might one infer from a protein shape change? less toxic would be one valid hypothesis wouldn't you agree?

Despite searching, i could find no information on the art of interpreting venom photographs anywhere. The first link provided by KBCid in the prior post says nothing about venom becoming less toxic via HBO; the effect instead is .

At this level, oxygen shows pharmacological action such as prevention of reperfusion injury, reduction of edema and reversal of
sublethal tissue damage.

An explanation of the SEM venom pictures and some discussion of the structure-toxicity relationship is necessary in order to evaluate the claims made. I haven't found anything remotely related - the closest is http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1429 which is rather negative.

The thing here Sandy is that venom is mostly protein so really interpretation of protein images is what is happening and a fair amount of science now works by way of analysis of these 3D images of protein structures. This type of imaging can be used to empirically back or eliminate Baugh's theory.

This would be the study not performed by Baugh that tends to back his assertion;

Brown Recluse Spider Envenomation: A Prospective Trial of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
...Our preliminary observations using homogenized skin + venom pretreated with HBO might suggest that the HBO mechanism in this injury could be some inactivation of a venom component...
...We also cannot exclude the possibility that the mechanical action of the bubbles or the environment of the chamber also might have had an inactivating effect on the venom... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3738.x/pdf

You have to ask yourself here why these scientists felt it was important to tell the world: "We also cannot exclude the possibility that... ...the environment of the chamber also might have had an inactivating effect on the venom"
They observed something they could not realistically explain any other way. Which is why they are saying "Our preliminary observations... ...with HBO might suggest that the HBO mechanism in this injury could be some inactivation of a venom component".
This alone gives cause to research what Baugh asserts since in effect its not just Baugh saying there are observable differences. Would you not agree with my logic here?

[KBCid]

I would like to thank everyone in this discussion with me for the civility that has occured all the way to page 3. What a breath of fresh air <3

[zoegirl]

Problem is, Baugh presents it as not a theory.

He starts off presuming a condition of antediluvian earth that no one can know. Even supposing that the earth/eden was perfect, no one could ever prove that the pressure was higher, the oxygen higher, etc, etc....all of his models are pure guesses.

Then he sets about "proving" these by strange methods that do not support the hypothesis. All he has are EM pics.