|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 28, 2015 21:59:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Feb 28, 2015 23:51:42 GMT -6
too long, didn't watch.
Shortened version:
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 1, 2015 9:20:40 GMT -6
It's an important subject, maybe you should fine the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 1, 2015 22:21:05 GMT -6
Pretty amazing, scientifically.
However, being the cynic I am, I have to wonder about the repercussions. There are always repercussions because we always get enamored with the good and never stop to consider what happens later.
With the invention of modern medicine, we've also essentially invented a whole world of new diseases that stem around our living longer and living better.
I mean, with things such as antibiotics, we've created bacterial diseases that can no longer be cured.
Now, we want to add biologic entities into the mix? We never stopped to think about all these antibiotics in our soaps, hand cleaners, countertops, etc and we bred superbacteria that cannot be stopped, and now we want to modify genomes of viruses that are even harder to battle, since they aren't even alive..? As a great, but fictitious scientist once said, "life finds a way".
He also said, "scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.."
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 2, 2015 3:56:24 GMT -6
he's quoting Jurassic park lol
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2015 7:46:10 GMT -6
he's quoting Jurassic park lol I did say it was a fictitious scientist.. But it's still words to live by nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 2, 2015 11:04:11 GMT -6
There are always repercussions because we always get enamored with the good and never stop to consider what happens later. It's a problem; the definition of "good" is relative, and the future is always in motion. I see this issue as a question of ethics. Science is not by nature unethical, IMHO. It's the business of applied science that veers into the murky waters of profit over safety. So, intensive oversight is a must for such an important industry, and it needs to be fully empowered to remove dangerous products and services from the marketplace when discovered. Here's the rub: damage is usually found after the fact, and business is generally adverse to admitting responsibility for causing harm. So there it is - responsibility is poorly enforced and people get hurt as a result. Add to this reality the fact that most people see science as a form of magic and you have cases where superstition trumps fact. The debate over inoculation for measles/diphtheria/polio is a perfect case where quackery and superstition has won the minds of a significant portion of people around the world, and introduced risk to the general population as a result. I am thankful that my parents had me inoculated as a child. If I could undergo a therapy that would prevent me from getting cancer, I would do it in a heartbeat. It has killed a significant portion of the male side of my family. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2015 12:03:28 GMT -6
There are always repercussions because we always get enamored with the good and never stop to consider what happens later. It's a problem; the definition of "good" is relative, and the future is always in motion. I see this issue as a question of ethics. Science is not by nature unethical, IMHO. It's the business of applied science that veers into the murky waters of profit over safety. So, intensive oversight is a must for such an important industry, and it needs to be fully empowered to remove dangerous products and services from the marketplace when discovered. Here's the rub: damage is usually found after the fact, and business is generally adverse to admitting responsibility for causing harm. So there it is - responsibility is poorly enforced and people get hurt as a result. Add to this reality the fact that most people see science as a form of magic and you have cases where superstition trumps fact. The debate over inoculation for measles/diphtheria/polio is a perfect case where quackery and superstition has won the minds of a significant portion of people around the world, and introduced risk to the general population as a result. I am thankful that my parents had me inoculated as a child. If I could undergo a therapy that would prevent me from getting cancer, I would do it in a heartbeat. It has killed a significant portion of the male side of my family. You'll get no argument from me on this. However, the scientists themselves are likely not seeking the profits. As you saw, at least one of them mentioned their funding drying up during the latest market downturn, which means they are working on donations, not corporation funding.. However, I still contend that messing around with genetics of creatures that we don't understand is a recipe for disaster. And yes, my father currently has cancer, and my grandfather died from pancreatic cancer. I'm a bit worried for my own health in the future, but I'd have a real hard time going along with these completely experimental hail marys. Look at the current problem with the experimental Ebola treatments.. The survivors now have extreme side effects from the cure. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 9, 2015 13:59:48 GMT -6
and now we want to modify genomes of viruses that are even harder to battle, since they aren't even alive..? As a great, but fictitious scientist once said, "life finds a way". They probably wouldn't have to alter the viruses in any way to get them to work. As stated in the early portion of the show when the prostitute was cured in 1910 by a mistaken injection. But here's a fact, Big Pharma can't sell anything that's natural. A natural compound must be altered in some way in a lab in order to be able to sell it as their own. This is the law. And this is also why doctors can never tell anyone to try a natural cure, even if they know there is one. It's part of the oath they take. Which leads me to this, it's zillion dollar industry. A doctor here or there might want to find a cure, but doctors in general (and especially Big Pharma) are not interested in a cure, they are interested in a treatment. Keeps us coming back and opening our wallets. Sad truth. There have been case after case of people treating cancer with great success naturally. But you won't hear of a single one from a doctor. They can't and won't tell us of those. Our immune systems are the key to battling any disease including cancer. Do we help our immune systems by filling our bodies with chemicals that is loaded in every fast food meal we eat? It's not McDonalds fellas, It's McDeath. They should change the sign. Educate yourselves on this subject and you'll see for yourselves. Foods loaded with vitamins, (dark green plants are best) build strong immune systems and have actually been known to help cure cancer if the person sticks to a strict veggan diet. Plants and grains is what our bodies where designed to eat. That's our fuel. We treat our cars better than our own bodies. We wouldn't dare pour muddy water in our gas tanks but we don't care a bit to fill our bodies with toxic poison. I'm not saying that your diet will cure cancer. To say that would be foolish. But a proper diet makes life worth living. I can attest to that from experience. I was once 50 pounds overweight and didn't much care if I lived or died. Felt horrible all the time because I ate fast food nearly everyday. I decided to change. Glad I did. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 9, 2015 14:30:11 GMT -6
and now we want to modify genomes of viruses that are even harder to battle, since they aren't even alive..? As a great, but fictitious scientist once said, "life finds a way". They probably wouldn't have to alter the viruses in any way to get them to work. As stated in the early portion of the show when the prostitute was cured in 1910 by a mistaken injection. But here's a fact, Big Pharma can't sell anything that's natural. A natural compound must be altered in some way in a lab in order to be able to sell it as their own. This is the law. And this is also why doctors can never tell anyone to try a natural cure, even if they know there is one. It's part of the oath they take. Which leads me to this, it's zillion dollar industry. A doctor here or there might want to find a cure, but doctors in general (and especially Big Pharma) are not interested in a cure, they are interested in a treatment. Keeps us coming back and opening our wallets. Sad truth. There have been case after case of people treating cancer with great success naturally. But you won't hear of a single one from a doctor. They can't and won't tell us of those. Our immune systems are the key to battling any disease including cancer. Do we help our immune systems by filling our bodies with chemicals that is loaded in every fast food meal we eat? It's not McDonalds fellas, It's McDeath. They should change the sign. Educate yourselves on this subject and you'll see for yourselves. Foods loaded with vitamins, (dark green plants are best) build strong immune systems and have actually been known to help cure cancer if the person sticks to a strict veggan diet. Plants and grains is what our bodies where designed to eat. That's our fuel. We treat our cars better than our own bodies. We wouldn't dare pour muddy water in our gas tanks but we don't care a bit to fill our bodies with toxic poison. I'm not saying that your diet will cure cancer. To say that would be foolish. But a proper diet makes life worth living. I can attest to that from experience. I was once 50 pounds overweight and didn't much care if I lived or died. Felt horrible all the time because I ate fast food nearly everyday. I decided to change. Glad I did. They specifically said that the HIV given to the girl was genetically modified to not replicate, and thus not cause an HIV infection.. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 10, 2015 6:38:59 GMT -6
Just my 2 pence worth, based on way too much time spent on reading and watching everything I could find on the subject.
We spend far too much time focused on what cause cancer and not nearly enough time on what feeds it.
SUGAR. White sugar. Monoglycerides.
Ever watched microbiological video of cancer cells? They live on simple sugars. Period. Introduce it and they come 'alive'. Remove it and they 'die down'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 10, 2015 11:36:02 GMT -6
I'm in trouble then...
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 10, 2015 11:44:04 GMT -6
Just my 2 pence worth, based on way too much time spent on reading and watching everything I could find on the subject. We spend far too much time focused on what cause cancer and not nearly enough time on what feeds it. SUGAR. White sugar. Monoglycerides. Ever watched microbiological video of cancer cells? They live on simple sugars. Period. Introduce it and they come 'alive'. Remove it and they 'die down'. There have been stories of folks who literally starve themselves to cure cancer. At first it sounds silly, but thinking about, it has some value. Cancer cells essentially kill you by taking over and starving out your other organs they invade. Cancer cells have extremely high metabolic rates and need something like 10x the nutrients of normal cells. If you were to retard the amount of available nutrients you could theoretically retard the growth of cancer cells.. But take it with a grain of salt, because it's only anecdotal evidence. |
|
