WikiIslam

Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies (view source)

Revision as of 04:38, 18 November 2025

256 bytes removed ,  18 November
→‎Analysis: cleaning up language
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
(→‎Analysis: cleaning up language)
Line 12: Line 12:
==Analysis==
==Analysis==


Bacteriophages (“phages”) are viruses that infect bacteria. It is a generality that all natural bacterial populations are limited by phages and environmental conditions, but it is a leap to suggest that these elements are antidotes. Mammals, too, are limited by pathogens, but it is foolish to suggest these pathogens are antidotal to mammals. Nevertheless, a dissection of the fly wing hadiths is as follows:
Bacteriophages (“phages”) are viruses that infect bacteria. It is a well known in the study of bacteria that all natural bacterial populations are limited by phages and environmental conditions, yet calling them "antidotes" overstates the case by far. Mammals, too, are limited by pathogens, but calling these pathogens antidotes would not be a correct use of the term. 


===Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote?===
===Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote?===
Line 21: Line 21:
This statement is evidently mistaken, but is also what must be the starting point in debating on this subject. For if they say that the presence of phages proves that the hadith is correct, then pointing out that phages are not limited to any one wing, right or left, immediately proves the falsehood in the hadiths.
This statement is evidently mistaken, but is also what must be the starting point in debating on this subject. For if they say that the presence of phages proves that the hadith is correct, then pointing out that phages are not limited to any one wing, right or left, immediately proves the falsehood in the hadiths.


===Making erroneous assumptions===
===Assumptions of this Argument===


A. It is assumed that bacteriophages are antidotal to bacteria.  
A. It is assumed that bacteriophages are antidotal to bacteria.  
Line 30: Line 30:
{{Quote||… from the perspective of logic, if the fly did not carry some sort of protection in the form of an antidote or immunity, it would perish from its own poisonous burden and there would be no fly left in the world.}}  
{{Quote||… from the perspective of logic, if the fly did not carry some sort of protection in the form of an antidote or immunity, it would perish from its own poisonous burden and there would be no fly left in the world.}}  


Flies do not succumb to human pathogens – they are merely carriers. This shows that those who make these claims do not understand pathogenesis. Flies do not succumb to human diseases.  
The facts here are not correct. Flies do not succumb to human pathogens – they are merely carriers. Flies are reservoirs of human viruses but are not infected by them as humans are.  


The way it works is as follows:  
The transmission pathway is as follows:  


*Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto itself.
*Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto itself.
Line 45: Line 45:
The ability to design antibiotics that might utilize bacteriophage infection pathways does not prove that phages are antidotal to bacteria. Antibiotics are not phages. Further, these antibiotics are likely to be ‘artificial’ and do not reflect the natural state of fly-human disease interactions.
The ability to design antibiotics that might utilize bacteriophage infection pathways does not prove that phages are antidotal to bacteria. Antibiotics are not phages. Further, these antibiotics are likely to be ‘artificial’ and do not reflect the natural state of fly-human disease interactions.


===Making erroneous claims===
===Claims about bacteriophages===


{{Quote||Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases.}}
{{Quote||Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases.}}


There are two mistakes here:  
This passage is mistaken:  


A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/|title= Malaria|publisher= World Health Organization Media Centre|series= Fact sheet No. 94|author= |date= Reviewed March 2013|archiveurl= http://archive.is/U4B5i|deadurl=no}}</ref>  
A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/|title= Malaria|publisher= World Health Organization Media Centre|series= Fact sheet No. 94|author= |date= Reviewed March 2013|archiveurl= http://archive.is/U4B5i|deadurl=no}}</ref>  


B. There is no such thing as bacteriophagic fungi. This term may sound impressive to non-scientists, but bacteriophages are viruses and fungi are simply fungi.
B. There is no such thing as bacteriophagic fungi. Fungi and bacteriophages are totally different; fungi are Eukaryotes in the kingdom Fungi, bacteriophages are viruses whose status as living organisms is disputed.  


===Quoting erroneous scientific articles===
===Further Claims about bacteriophages===


{{Quote||These fly microbiota are bacteriophagic or "germ-eating". Bacteriophages are viruses of viruses. They attack viruses and bacteria. They can be selected and bred to kill specific organisms. The viruses infect a bacterium, replicate and fill the bacterial cell with new copies of the virus, and then break through the bacterium's cell wall, causing it to burst. The existence of similar bacteria-killing mechanisms in two bacteriophages suggests that antibiotics for human infections might be designed on the basis of these cell wall-destroying proteins. Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.}}
{{Quote||These fly microbiota are bacteriophagic or "germ-eating". Bacteriophages are viruses of viruses. They attack viruses and bacteria. They can be selected and bred to kill specific organisms. The viruses infect a bacterium, replicate and fill the bacterial cell with new copies of the virus, and then break through the bacterium's cell wall, causing it to burst. The existence of similar bacteria-killing mechanisms in two bacteriophages suggests that antibiotics for human infections might be designed on the basis of these cell wall-destroying proteins. Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.}}
Line 63: Line 63:
B. Not all bacteriophages encode cell-wall destroying proteins to lyse host cells.
B. Not all bacteriophages encode cell-wall destroying proteins to lyse host cells.


===Misinterpreting scientific facts===
===Further scientific claims===


{{Quote|1=|2=Gnotobiotic [=germ-free] insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica [houseflies] .... most relationships between insects and their microbiota remain undefined. Studies with gnotobiotic locusts suggest that the microbiota confers previously unexpected benefits for the insect host.}}  
{{Quote|1=|2=Gnotobiotic [=germ-free] insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica [houseflies] .... most relationships between insects and their microbiota remain undefined. Studies with gnotobiotic locusts suggest that the microbiota confers previously unexpected benefits for the insect host.}}  
Line 73: Line 73:
Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha (p. 42).}}  
Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha (p. 42).}}  


This has just proven the existence of bacteriophages. What it has not proven is whether these bacteriophages protect humans against human pathogens carried by flies.
This passage just attests to the existence of bacteriophages. This has no bearing on whether the bacteriphages present on the (one) wing of the fly can protect humans from viruses.  


===Extending claims inappropriately===
===Extending claims inappropriately===
Line 79: Line 79:
{{Quote||The fly microbiota were described as "longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside their bellies. These yeast cells, in order to perpetuate their life cycle, protrude through certain respiratory tubules of the fly. If the fly is dipped in a liquid, the cells burst into the fluid and the content of those cells is an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries." Cf. Footnote in the Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).}}  
{{Quote||The fly microbiota were described as "longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside their bellies. These yeast cells, in order to perpetuate their life cycle, protrude through certain respiratory tubules of the fly. If the fly is dipped in a liquid, the cells burst into the fluid and the content of those cells is an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries." Cf. Footnote in the Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).}}  


Now it is not only phages on the right wing, but the yeast cells inside fly stomachs and respiratory tubules. We assume it is the yeast antibiotics they are referring to. The presence of tiny amounts of antibiotics (produced by fungi) does not protect humans from enteric diseases. Apologists are confused about antibiotics – they do not understand how antibiotics work. Dosage is important. Modern antibiotics are artificial and highly purified. Treatment of bacterial infections involves massive doses of purified antibiotics that are not found in the natural environment.
Now it is not only phages on the right wing, but the yeast cells inside fly stomachs and respiratory tubules. We assume it is the yeast antibiotics they are referring to. The presence of tiny amounts of antibiotics (produced by fungi) does not protect humans from enteric diseases. The apologist is conveying misinformation here. The Dosage makes the antidote. Modern antibiotics are artificial and highly purified. Treatment of bacterial infections involves massive doses of purified antibiotics that are not found in the natural environment. The small amounts inside the body of the animal do not offer any meaningful effect for humabns.  


===Confusing the use of bacteriophage===
===Confusing the use of bacteriophage===
Line 87: Line 87:
A. The O1-phage is used for typing (i.e. diagnosing) Salmonella infections, not treating it.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://web.archive.org/web/20091027101854/http://www.geocities.com/avinash_abhyankar/typing.htm|title=  Typing of Salmonellae|publisher= Avinash Abhyankar|author= |date= Internet Archive capture dated October 27, 2009|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20091027101854%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Favinash_abhyankar%2Ftyping.htm&date=2013-07-28|deadurl=no}}</ref>  
A. The O1-phage is used for typing (i.e. diagnosing) Salmonella infections, not treating it.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://web.archive.org/web/20091027101854/http://www.geocities.com/avinash_abhyankar/typing.htm|title=  Typing of Salmonellae|publisher= Avinash Abhyankar|author= |date= Internet Archive capture dated October 27, 2009|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20091027101854%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Favinash_abhyankar%2Ftyping.htm&date=2013-07-28|deadurl=no}}</ref>  


B. Bacteriophage therapy was subsumed by antibiotic therapy in the 1940s because it was largely ineffective. Before antibiotics, physicians were desperate for cures – they would try anything, even bacteriophage therapy – but that does not prove bacteriophage therapy works. In any event, one would need massive doses of phages to treat each case – which does not occur in the natural environment. A fly dipping its right wing, left wing, or its entire body, will not be sufficient.
B. Bacteriophage therapy does work, but as in the discussion above, the dosage makes the antidote. Relative to the small amount of phages found on the wing of a fly, massive doses of phages would be needed to treat each case. A fly dipping its right wing, left wing, or its entire body, will not be sufficient.


===Failure to understand what is purported as proof===
===Further bacteriophage Discussion===


{{Quote||However, researchers in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, continued their studies of the potential healing properties of phages. And now that strains of bacteria resistant to standard antibiotics are on the rise, the idea of phage therapy has been getting more attention in the worldwide medical community. Several biotechnology companies have been formed in the U.S. to develop bacteriophage-based treatments - many of them drawing on the expertise of researchers from eastern Europe." <nowiki>http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html</nowiki>}}  
{{Quote||However, researchers in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, continued their studies of the potential healing properties of phages. And now that strains of bacteria resistant to standard antibiotics are on the rise, the idea of phage therapy has been getting more attention in the worldwide medical community. Several biotechnology companies have been formed in the U.S. to develop bacteriophage-based treatments - many of them drawing on the expertise of researchers from eastern Europe." <nowiki>http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html</nowiki>}}  


A. This article they quote and link to highlights one of the main limitations of bacteriophages in therapeutics, i.e. it is rapidly taken up by the human body and destroyed in human spleen cells. Therefore, even when a fly should carry bacteriophages, normal human physiology precludes these phages from acting as antidotes.  
Bacteriophage therapy is a growing area of treatment. But these bacteriophage-based treatments involve the use of genetic engineering and other advanced scientific techniques to utilize bacteriophage pathogenesis for the treatment of human diseases by providing massive doses of custom-grown phages to patients. Naturally-occurring bacteriophages on the wing of a fly cannot be compared to these treatments.


B. Even if some biotechnology companies want to develop bacteriophage-based treatments, it does not prove the hadith to be correct. These bacteriophage-based treatments involve the use of genetic engineering and other advanced scientific techniques to utilize bacteriophage pathogenesis for the treatment of human diseases. Naturally-occurring bacteriophages are useless for this purpose.
===The problem non-bacterial enteric diseases===
 
===Ignoring non-bacterial enteric diseases===


Even if the wings of flies were to provide humans with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could possibly infect humans with another non-bacterial disease. Flies also spread pinworm, tapeworm, viral gastroenteritis, amebic dysentery, giardia enteritis, and enteric hepatitis. Bacteriophages and fungi are totally ineffective against these diseases.
Even if the wings of flies were to provide humans with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could possibly infect humans with another non-bacterial disease. Flies also spread pinworm, tapeworm, viral gastroenteritis, amebic dysentery, giardia enteritis, and enteric hepatitis. Bacteriophages and fungi are totally ineffective against these diseases.
Line 111: Line 109:
3. Bacteriophages are ineffective against non-bacterial diseases carried by flies, meaning even if the wings were to provide you with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice).  
3. Bacteriophages are ineffective against non-bacterial diseases carried by flies, meaning even if the wings were to provide you with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice).  


4. Phage therapy is not a generally-accepted medical therapy at present because it is largely ineffective and requires large quantities of purified, possibly genetically-engineered, phages not present in the natural condition.
4. Phage therapy as practiced does not involve ingesting phages from naturally occuring reservoirs such as the bodies of flies since these also carry other diseases and do not contain the right phages or right amount of phages to be effective. The comparison here is inappropriate and uninformative both for the purposes of phage therapy and the study of the fly biome.  


==Responses to Apologetics==
==Responses to Apologetics==
Asmith
Editors, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers
5,264

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/140182"