Devil disease: answer this

TWO years after the Devil Facial Tumour Disease, there is still no scientific peer-reviewed publication even on the basic description of pathology of this unique neoplasm.

Despite many years of local media commentary and a few editorialised comments in New Scientist given to a proposed transmission theory for this tumour, there are no indications that any experimental transmission studies have been attempted.

Mainstream media has again been used as the forum for important new revelations in the study of DFTD; this time on a likely causal association between the emergence of this tumour and several chemicals used in the Tasmanian environment. (Devil disease: the chemical bombshell)

A valid question to ask is, what means will be used to test whether any of the ‘top ten toxins’ selected and identified, or any in combination, is responsible for the neoplastic transformation of these cells or the cytogenetic changes that have been identified?

The chemicals reported in Matthew Denholm’s article in The Weekend Australian Magazine on 22-23 October are: arsenic, inorganic lead compounds, mercury, the triazine herbicides used in forest plantations (atrazine & simazine), organochlorines including DDT, dioxins, organophosphates (used in various currently used pesticides) and sodium monofluoroacetate (or 1080).

What has suggested to the DFTD researchers that these chemical toxins, pollutants and poisons are the worthiest candidates to test any linkage with the development of the genetically rearranged cancer cells of devils?

And what methods are going to be applied to thoroughly investigate this important hypothesis which is now being so openly discussed by DFTD scientists?

David Obendorf is a veterinarian

More at:
DAVID OBENDORF