Sorry to bring up the funnelweb again but using your logic 'accurate for the purpose' it is harmless. I think what people where trying to say (myself included) Is that the LD50 test using mice while useful is not conclusive. You CAN NOT state with any certainty that Snake A has a potentially more dangerous bite to a human (all things being equal) than snake B because just because it kills more mice. You say there is no clear evidence of this. I don't know how you reach that conclusion but if you truly believe this then I guess no adding of peer reviewed papers as done above would change your mind.
Get off you're high horse Australia!
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
This is a revolving arguement that is not going anywhere. You cannot argue that an LD50 is useless or not conclusive until you can prove otherwise. We can say that snake A is more venomous than snake B as there is a test that is consistant amongst all snakes and list them in order of toxicity to prove it. You cannot comapre human fatalaties due to snake bite either due to 3rd world countries being the most affected, so therefore severe lack of hosptials and anti-venom and extremely poor education assist in making up the numbers of ppl killed each year. There are a lot more people bitten out here compared to those that have died and that is purely because we have an educated society, anti-venoms and readily avilable hospitals, helicopters etc to help save those that get bitten.And NO ONE will ever prove LD50 to be incorrect as you cannot (humanely) use humans as guinea pigs to do a 'real' test on the venoms reactions in people. And even then, you have all the varying factors in each individual such blood types, allergies etc etc that can affect the way venom reacts in each indivdual.
So debating over this is that and that and this is all heresay until someone can provide documented proof/study done on humans. Yes there may be a change in the 'what is most venomous to humans' list, but it aint gonna change now or in any forseeable future. So just learn to deal with the facts we have, and not the possibilities that ppl are randomly guessing at.
double0dappa
Not so new Member
Very true HOOGLABAH. I mean Sri Lanka has a bigger population than Australia on an island smaller than Tasmania. There wouldn't be many place's snakes could be without being surrounded by humans. Of course they're gonna have way more bites than anywhere else
waruikazi
Legendary
At the risk of sounding unintelligent, if you can't measure the potency of a venom on humans, then how do you know?I knew you would get there eventually!
To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed.
This is all about the LD50 right? So if the LD50 is not a good test (which i agree it isn't) Then how do we know that your overseas species are more toxic? There is NO test for snake venom toxicity on humans that could be done so what the hell is everyone batting off over on this thread? There you go on masturbating again, what is with that? But well done! You have finally understood the point of the paper!
Do aussie snakes have the most toxic venom in the world? Who really gives a stuff?? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that they are right up there. Does anyone care for some inland Tai, brown or tiger directly into the vein? All the first aid in the world would be hard pressed saving a life there. Absolutely!
Who are you talking at when you say get off your high horse? An imaginary band of yobs who paint themselves green and gold and shout from the rooftops that we are the best because we have THE MOST VENOMOUS?? The man with the highest horse of course!
Like its been said, until we have another test, its all we got, if your that upset about it and feel the need to ridicule it then be my guest. There is more important things to do then carry on with this crap. Like batting off?
later wazza
It took you some time and you went on a strange path but you got there eventually. I guess you are as intelligent as i originally thought you may have been.
Yes you can, but only if you are talking about the venoms affect on mice. As for your comment stating it is correct until proven otherwise, well thats not how science works. You gather evidence to back up a claim, it isn't correct purely because nobody has dis proven it. Besides the point anyway as it has been shown over and over again that different animals react differently to different venoms and this has already been stated many times in this thread with supporting evidence.
But the point is it has been proven, via an LD50 test. This proves the levels of venom toxicity in snakes. How can you say it is no good when you have absolutely nothing to compare it with? Your arguement is null and void as you cannot prove that viper venom is more potent to humans then taipan venom without doing the relevant tests. It is all just heresay.
Talking about the posability of the way it may affect ppl is irelevant if you cannot carry out a venom test on them. Yes, all venoms react differently to all different animals. Venom even reacts differently to me compared to you if we were invenomated. I agree that venom reacts differently, but we are talking directly about its effects on humans. And there is no test and nothing at all that can or will prove which is most toxic to humans. End of story.
Talking about the posability of the way it may affect ppl is irelevant if you cannot carry out a venom test on them. Yes, all venoms react differently to all different animals. Venom even reacts differently to me compared to you if we were invenomated. I agree that venom reacts differently, but we are talking directly about its effects on humans. And there is no test and nothing at all that can or will prove which is most toxic to humans. End of story.
Awesome... So then why not say... "we cant say for sure which snakes have the most toxic venoms on a drop for drop basis because the only way to be sure would be to test it on humans, which is impossible"... Now that would be the correct and logical thing to say if you were truly interested in getting correct facts on venomous snakes... But unfortunately alot of people would just prefer the far more glamorous hyped answer even at the expensive of the real true answer.
This is off topic, but for the Coastal Taipan.... Aren't they pretty rare in Australia?? I know their common in Papua but I remember talking to someone who said that they are rarely encountered or seen in Oz
Wild~Touch
Very Well-Known Member
Aren't they pretty rare in Australia??
Just because they are rarely seen does not necessarily mean they are rare. All depends who you talk to.
Cheers
Sandee
Just because they are rarely seen does not necessarily mean they are rare. All depends who you talk to.
Cheers
Sandee
cement
Very Well-Known Member
It took you some time and you went on a strange path but you got there eventually. I guess you are as intelligent as i originally thought you may have been.
To say aussie elapids don't leave after bite symptoms and problems What kind of moron thinks an elapid bite wont leaves symptoms? Who the hell said that?, tell that to the people who have suffered renal failure, or had digits/ limbs removed.
You said something along these lines.
It seems to me that the point of the thread was more splitting hairs over the difference in word meanings between dangerous and deadly, and now a lesson in comprehension. A pointless exercise, that was carried on by some moron. Seriously not worth treating yourself like an amusement park over.
Keep up with the patronising though, its one of your most endearing qualities.
moosenoose
Legendary
I vote this as the dumbest thread I've ever read on this site! :lol:
It's dumber than "meet my snake Monty" lol
It's dumber than "meet my snake Monty" lol
Mighty_Moose
Well-Known Member
+1 lol, At least there is no argument about Monty.
They dont leave the kind of after bite symptoms anywhere near as frequently as snakes from elsewhere do... Of course some of the credit for that goes to the hospitals and excellent medical care that you receive in Australia and also the "reptile" awareness that the people have...But they still tend to cause less after bite symptoms... Elapids in general usually cause less after bite symptoms and of course their are no vipers in australia.
Digits/Limbs removed?? What... Which aussie snakes cause necrosis? I know the tiger snake can cause renal failure and maybe some brown snakes could aswell..
And its quite obvious what the main point is of this thread... It really isnt even talking about "dangerous or deadly" and I think that you know that but you are just choosing to ignore it... The point of this thread is pretty obvious.
This thread has 10x more value and worth than a "top ten most venomous or deadly snakes thread" with 6+ of them being australian snakes.... or in Steve Irwins case all 10 of them being australian....The reason I bumped this thread was because their was some incorrect information in it and it needed to be corrected... Of course I'm not the only one... The original starter of the thread and a few others also knew about the truth about the ld50 test and of course Brian Bush.
Last edited:
moosenoose
Legendary
More value? In who's opinion? Yours? :lol:
Hell yes... And unlike most of the australian fanboys on here I have actullay posted evidence to support my claims... To say that australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous drop for drop snakes to humans is a stretch.... Irwins claim that they have the top 10 was just absolutely retarded/wrong
waruikazi
Legendary
Cement i didn't post this thread for you. Do you realize that? I posted it for me, because two and a half years ago this was a point of interest of mine. So now when i say get off your high horse, i'm talking to you. Get off your high horse Cement, this thread is not about you.
Like i said, take the info in this thread how ever you like. What has been said is hardly new or ground breaking, perhaps you aren't as intelligent as i was beginning to give you credit for. But you know, yeah ok, whatever.
wiz-fiz
Very Well-Known Member
I only read 1/4 of the paper, but it seems to me that he is mistaking how venomous something is for how deadly it is? deadly being how many people it kills each year, and venomousity being how many people it can kill with 1 drop or however they say how venomous.
Have i got the right terminology? or am i just completely wrong?
Will
Have i got the right terminology? or am i just completely wrong?
Will
moosenoose
Legendary
Claims of what? I hear an awful lot of tin-rattling with very little evidence to back it up. I understand, to a degree, the point you are trying to push, but unless there is another measurement of toxicity levels available, you and your pansy snakes (who are out of the top 10) are just going to have to suck it up :lol:
It is starting to seem to me it more like mmafan555 is upset that the snakes they have there aren't as venomous as ours. We ca say we have X amount of the most venomous snakes in the world as the LD50 proves it, there is no other test to prove otherwise, so why are you guys continuing on a path that has no results? Anyway, enough of this continuing dribble if you ask me, the points have been made, nothing left to discuss really.
moosenoose
Legendary
I think this might sum it up?
waruikazi
Legendary
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
