/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12738393
You can't get rid of the toxins they produce man. Any gram negative bacteria that proliferates outside the gut or surface of the skin will start causing problems. This is why we try very hard to ensure bacteria isn't present inside the bloodstream. They generate toxins as a part of their existence. The life cycle argument is bs because it ignores the central premise that "bacteria cause infections that kill people". They don't just make it once because someone ate a slightly rotten food and got a couple micrograms of endootoxin in their system. The problem I'd that the bacteria in the rotten food proliferate and start generating a consistent high level of endotoxin.

Some bacteria make more diverse sets of toxins at higher levels and some at less. This means some bacterial species like anthrax are more dangerous while others like non-pathogenic e.coli are less. Anthrax being a sample that actually matches up sorta with your hypothesis as their spore form is more deadly. But regardless it's a bacteria causing an infection that kills people.

>Their role is not to kill living organisms
What are you smoking? Why wouldn't bacteria kill other organisms if it gave them food? Some don't do it in a general sense and rely on symbiotic or direct predation on other bacteria. But some dine quite happily on animal tissue, some are so good at it we just call them flesh eating bacteria.

It's bizarre how firmly you are trying to deny the idea that bacteria can cause disease. Or just that germs in general can cause disease.

Saying "it's not the bacteria that kill it's the toxins" is the same as saying "it's not the gun that kills it's the bullets". Technically correct in the most uselessly pedantic way