Biggest killer in the world.

Well, suffice to say I'm not going to register. How about some more numbers Snake?

300-500 million get infected sure, but how many die? I guess 10 percent. Thank god for sickle-cell anemia!

And the most important thing to remember IMO about citing which epidemic was bigger is whether you mean in absolute body count or in mortality rates.

In terms of morbidity rates that AIDS is the most deadly disease known to man with a 100 percent (eventual) mortality rate. But in terms of numbers killed, I would guess that Malaria is right up there with smallpox. Both malaria and smallpox are much easier to transmit than HIV, hence the more widespread the damage.

[murdoch casts the bait]
 
This is the oldest news in the bloody world. Malaria has been the worst killer for ages.

PS: Murdoch, it's not something you can argue about. Malaria is the worst killer in history. Hurray. Who cares?
 
I'd say Llife is the most deadly disease. Think about it, it has a 100% mortality rate, effects all races and species, both plants and animals, and is extremely communicable. It's also a sexually transmitted disease.

Beat that one.
 
Nomad said:
I'd say Llife is the most deadly disease. Think about it, it has a 100% mortality rate, effects all races and species, both plants and animals, and is extremely communicable. It's also a sexually transmitted disease.

Beat that one.
Click to expand...

Dude, that is so cheap, stop using people's signature as an argument. I forget who's sig that is though.
 
Nomad said:
I'd say Llife is the most deadly disease. Think about it, it has a 100% mortality rate, effects all races and species, both plants and animals, and is extremely communicable. It's also a sexually transmitted disease.

Beat that one.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I'm more scared of ecoli, which has been gone for what, 50 years now, but damn, I read some scary stuff about it. The Black Death also scares me. It's not the ones that are around that scare me more, it's the ones that are "sleeping" that scare me the most. Just waiting for their time, to strike again. I think the Plague is still around a bit in India right? Anyhow, there's my two cents.
 
:wall:

Did you just say that you're afraid of E coli, PS? Wow, you must really live in a bubble, not just in a figurative one.[/i]

Try smallpox being gone for 50 years, young one.
 
I believe that smallpox was eradicated in the 70's thanks to a world wide campaign. There are only two samples left in the world - one in USA and one in Russia. The last registered person to ever contract smallpox recovered from the diesease.

Blach Death hasn't been around for a while. It could be troublesome, but bear in mind that the great epidemic that struck Europe in the XIV century was also a credit to malnutrition and lack of proper sanitation, which lowered the natural resistance of its inhabitants. Also, perhaps more people would have the innate resistance to the illness. The mortality rate could be very lower.

If I were to pick a mass killer of the future, I'd go with flu. It has numerous strains, it mutates rapidly (and rabidly) through the abuse of antibiotics and is very apt to cause severe complcations even should it not be the primary cause of a person's death.
 
Sander said:
This is the oldest news in the bloody world. Malaria has been the worst killer for ages.

PS: Murdoch, it's not something you can argue about. Malaria is the worst killer in history. Hurray. Who cares?
Click to expand...

Lol so what? It may be old news but its still a problem.

If you dont want to register I can copy the whole story and post it, its basicly about what theyre using to stop it now and how big the problem used to be and the controversy way of getting rid of it.
 
Murdoch said:
Did you just say that you're afraid of E coli, PS?
Click to expand...

I'll bet he was refering to Ebola. Now that is a deadly disease, and so are the viruses (like Mahrburg) like it. I don't think I could think of anything worse than bleeding to death, from every orifice in my body.
 
Radiation death then? Thats gotta be painfull but thats no disease. How about an acid death? melting..ouch..but thats quicker.
 
Silencer said:
If I were to pick a mass killer of the future, I'd go with flu. It has numerous strains, it mutates rapidly (and rabidly) through the abuse of antibiotics and is very apt to cause severe complcations even should it not be the primary cause of a person's death.
Click to expand...

Antibiotics having any effect on a virus? I wonder what kind of fool thinks that, but then I think of the third world and the inbred people in all countries who would swallow the same pills they were prescribed for the clap as a method to fight off influenza. They are a good example of which. I would also like to note that antibiotics, when abused and taken incorrectly, tend to make more nasty bacterial strains; there's no affect upon virii.
 
well theres, or will be a substitute to antibiotika. Thats ants. I saw it on discovery a few year back, it said ants never get any backterias or viruses, they have an immunity.
In the show you could see how ants tended to mould in their nest, and its theorized that mould evolved thanks to ants and became the bacteria killer it is. I'll try to find a page that proves my point.
 
I think the problem with antibiotics nowadays is the fact that both the Bacteria that are treated with the antibiotics, and the patients using them, are building up an immunity to the antibiotics. According to the AAAS, "the overwhelming reason for antibiotic microbial resistance is the overabundance of prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotics are so prevalent that microbes have begun adapting to their effects due to constant exposure. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that half of the more than 100 million annual prescriptions of antibiotics are unnecessary, and therefore they are working to promote the rational use of antibiotics."
 
Hideki Hitler said:
I would also like to note that antibiotics, when abused and taken incorrectly, tend to make more nasty bacterial strains; there's no affect upon virii.
Click to expand...

I bow my head to you; Indeed there is no effect antibiotics can have on virii; In fact, there are few things that can. I'm no biologist I'm afraid, and I got some things totally mixed up. It's the bacteria that get stronger and more resistant to treatment.

Virii simply mutate at an alarming rate and exchange genetic info between strains, thus becoming more deadly and unpredictable.

A part of what I wrote before, was obvious boulderdash; What I perhaps meant, was that combinations of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains and new cross-bred viruses may prove to be more deadly than anything that had come before.
 
Snake said:
well theres, or will be a substitute to antibiotika. Thats ants. I saw it on discovery a few year back, it said ants never get any backterias or viruses, they have an immunity.
In the show you could see how ants tended to mould in their nest, and its theorized that mould evolved thanks to ants and became the bacteria killer it is. I'll try to find a page that proves my point.
Click to expand...

Hey, I saw that too. it was only a specific species of ant, though. They're "agricultural ants" or something. There's a fungus that they grow in their hive, and the ones that actually do the cultivating, have a special antibiotic "dust" covering them that keeps both a.) the ant from getting sick, and b.) the fungus from getting "sick".

Pretty cool, actually. We had to do a little study of them in my Biology class a few months back.
 
Hmmm, lets see, the biggest killer in the world.... Would have to be.... You... And me, and your mom, and the girl next door. Hell, the biggest killer is one fuckup called man kind. :) And I'm part of it.
 
That SARS thing was pretty scary. It spreads so easily due to the fact it is airborne, and it's fairly new so who knows what it could turn into. There's only like a 98% chance of survival or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top