LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCan an adult (animal not plants) be genetically modifyed or possibly spliced? Does an organism have to be an embryo to be modified? Hypothetically, was Peter Parker too old to be spider/man?
17Likes
July 1st, 2013, 09:58 PM
Can an adult (animal not plants) be genetically modifyed or possibly spliced? Does an organism have to be an embryo to be modified? Hypothetically, was Peter Parker too old to be spider/man?
Last edited by Dreamraider; July 2nd, 2013 at 06:50 AM.
All the research I have seen seems aimed at embryonic development. Ex. Doug turnbull's work on three parent children.
So what you are saying is.Originally Posted by Dreamraider
Would it be possible to change an adults DNA.
It may not be possible now, but it might be in the future.
As long as we don't mess to much and change the species entirely, a little tweak here and there couldn't hurt. A better ability of self repair would be great, regrowing limbs, repairing retinas, hearing etc.. Has got to be good.
Last edited by pavlos; July 2nd, 2013 at 03:23 PM. Reason: spelling
My worry is that it may lead to some new form of cancer.-then again.... Everything nowadays causes cancer.
Yes infact its definetly entirely true to the current date of this posting. They are out there, their called web crawlers, if they are ever found they will spiders.
This makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with the opening question. What about the actual question were you actually trying to say
He was born spiderman, the spider bite merely caused an internal reaction to what was already there, ty.
Wrong.
Totally incorrect per spiderman cannon
Whenever I read a post by you, I lose the ability to form coherent sentences for 15 to 20 seconds. It's frightening.
The preferred method of travel for Spider-Man.
The question is more about gene therapy than genetic modification. Inserting new genes into an adult is possible and has been done, many times. It usually involves a retrovirus to carry the new genes. The thing is, though, that up until the present time, such gene insertion occurs only in some of the cells of the human body - not all of them. This may be sufficient to cure a genetic illness, but it has its limits.
Could gene therapy be used to create something like spiderman? Seriously unlikely. However, in some future time and superior genetic science, it may be possible to use an advanced gene therapy to create substantial changes to someone.
I have see three problems of giving adult humans genes to code for above normal abilities.
The first problem I will address is that the unlike other cells, nerve cells do not complete the cell cycle as frequently as other cells. This is one of the main reasons spinal cord injuries are infamous for being irreversible. To add genes to these cells puts patients at greater risk than anything else. However, most of the uses of above human abilities people would want involve the nervous system (memory, IQ, eye-hand-coordination, pattern recognition, multitasking, etc.). This risk-vs.-want situation could make public support dynamic and unreliable, slowing the development of genetic research.
Spicing genes that increase strength, language development, memory, tissue strength, etc. into embryos would require major reconfiguration of the patient's genome. Every genetic change would result in side effects, which would then be countered by more genetic changes with some side effects... That would continue until the remaining side effects could be treated in other ways, such as environmental control, careful diet, hormone supplemental therapy, protein injections, dialysis, etc. If we managed to work this all out and successfully gave it to human embryos, then and only then, we could try it on an adult. The idea of giving multiple embryos an untested gene so we know it is safe for use in adults raises many ethical dilemmas, especially since the gene works or does not. Middle ground does not exist when death, mental retardation, physical deformities, cancer, etc. are on the line.
The last problem could happen when we try to shift from embryonic gene spicing to gene spicing into adults. First, would need to splice the genes into enough cells that as the cells replicate, the genes spread. In an embryo there are few cells, limiting this problem. With so many spices in a short amount of time, your immune system could see these new genes as virus DNA or these strange cells as cancer cells, resulting in auto-immune diseases. This issue may not have happened in embryos because their immune systems were still developing. A solution would be to strengthen the cells with the new genes so that they resist the immune response. The down side of this is that if the patient gets cancer, it will be immune resistant cancer. We could suppress the immune system while the altered cells replicate so the immune system has time to adapt. Infections of all kinds are the clear draw back to this method . Alternatively, we weaken everyone's immune system as an embryo so that later genes can be added as wished. People would take drugs daily, to boost their immune system. When they want to add new genes, people are put in clean rooms and stop taking the immune improving drugs during treatment. The immune system would be weakened during this time, minimizing the immune response. After the immune system has adapted to the new cells, the patient starts takes the immune boosting drugs again. An obvious short coming to this plan is that it involves lowering the immune systems of the whole or a majority of the human population. If a bacteria adapts just right, then we will end up living in a bad sci-fi movie where the one person in the world who can save us won't because his wife left him.
Although this is not impossible, spicing genes into adults would require complete understanding of the human body on a protein by protein level and the ability to write and manufacture genetic code from scratch. Personally, I doubt it will happen in my grand-kids time, but I would not say it is impossible.
P.S. The idea of the spider-bite triggering Peter's latent powers I find very interesting. It would explain a lot of problems that fans find in the comics. More importantly, it would make for a cool story arch. It would be something like, "Spidiey's Evil Cousin Developes the Super-Spider Powers! Can He be Stopped, or Will this be the End of ... ... ... The Amazing Spider-Man!" To bad the writers didn't think of it sooner.
Yeah.
Maybe if you knew anything at all about the back-story and canon mythos of Spidey you'd see that's not a viable story line.
Maybe Peter Parkers mother got bit by a spider when she was pregnant with him. The spider that activated his powers just got attracted to his potential to be spider-man.
But.. as a geneticist i'm saying it's not possible. However the fictionist inside me, likes to think about it..
In the up-coming story line "Family Business" Peter's long lost sister is introduced.Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View PostP.S. The idea of the spider-bite triggering Peter's latent powers I find very interesting. It would explain a lot of problems that fans find in the comics. More importantly, it would make for a cool story arch. It would be something like, "Spidiey's Evil Cousin Developes the Super-Spider Powers! Can He be Stopped, or Will this be the End of ... ... ... The Amazing Spider-Man!" To bad the writers didn't think of it sooner.
Yeah.
Maybe if you knew anything at all about the back-story and canon mythos of Spidey you'd see that's not a viable story line.
And that's relevant because...?
I think most of us appreciate that the idea of a radioactive spider bite creating a super being is so much hogwash.
If we want to create a 'super' human, we have to start with a zygote, and do the genetic changes at that point. Nor would something as random as a bite do it. It would require the expertise that comes from millions of man-hours of dedicated research.
My own feeling is that there is nothing to stop the creation of a superior human when genetics advances to that point. Long research will result in a gene bank with hundreds of 'superior' genes. These could then be inserted into a zygote, which would develop into the superman we are talking of. It will not be easy. There is, today, for example, only one gene that has been identified as being associated with higher intelligence. Geneticists think intelligence will require perhaps 50 specific genes. To fit those genes into our gene bank for insertion would be a massive task.
Add on genes for athleticism, health, longevity, good looks, etc., and there will be hundreds of genes involved. It may prove easier to simply create an artificial chromosome to carry all the superior genes, and simply insert the entire chromosome into a human zygote.
I'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.So what you are saying is.
Would it be possible to change an adults DNA.
It may not be possible now, but it might be in the future.
As long as we don't mess to much and change the species entirely, a little tweak here and there couldn't hurt. A better ability of self repair would be great, regrowing limbs, repairing retinas, hearing etc.. Has got to be good.
I would allow myself to be modified to have bioluminescent hair. That's science I can get behind.
Skeptic, I agree. I had never thought of using an artificial chromosome to transmit the spliced genes. It raises the question of how would a child with two artificial chromosomes would develop the new genes "fought" each other. I suppose we could make it so that zygotes produced by the parents do not contain the artificial gene.
Or freckles. that would make it possible to play connect the dots in the dark. :P
Where did she get lost at?
It's my life long dream to become Arachnocampo Man!I'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.So what you are saying is.
Would it be possible to change an adults DNA.
It may not be possible now, but it might be in the future.
As long as we don't mess to much and change the species entirely, a little tweak here and there couldn't hurt. A better ability of self repair would be great, regrowing limbs, repairing retinas, hearing etc.. Has got to be good.
Been there, done that. (In a manner of speaking).
It can cause quite a shock at 4 AM though.
What the F*CK is that on my pillow?!!! Oh, yeah...
love the smell of glow sticks in the cancer ward...I'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.So what you are saying is. Would it be possible to change an adults DNA. It may not be possible now, but it might be in the future.As long as we don't mess to much and change the species entirely, a little tweak here and there couldn't hurt. A better ability of self repair would be great, regrowing limbs, repairing retinas, hearing etc.. Has got to be good.
The imagery in my head right now is so many shades of wrong right now....
Bio-luminescent hair is not possible. Fluorescent hair however is. A cell needs to be alive to have the ability to emit light. Fotoetheric, or phosphorescent light is also possible, but it will only glow minutes after you turn off the light. I also think the color of the hair itself would have to be bright white, or lightly yellow, otherwise it can't absorb enough energy.
The gene that produces melanin can be adjusted, to not only produce melanin but also the other compound, and melanin only in low amounts. I doubt it would make you healthy though. As parts of your skin will have similar phosphorescent properties as your hair.
I'm thinking to much about this, ain't i?
To Shlunka - The storyline has not come out yet. If I had to make a bet, I would say 'she' is a robot make by Harry because he decided that his robot parents idea was good enough to do twice.
Toward the end of the Stargate Atlantis series retroviruses were getting to be all the rage in their plot lines. Supposedly the virus goes through a person's body and replaces their existing DNA with a new DNA. (Not sure how it gets past the immune system.)
They even used a retrovirus once to turn one of the villainous "Wraith" into a normal human. But you know.... that's science fiction.
Retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[QUOTE=Dreamraider;436314]My worry is that it may lead to some new form of cancer.-then again.... Everything nowadays causes cancer.[/QUOTE
]ZURICH? Really? My daughter works there!
Well I think many cancers would and could be cured, if they would use knowledge that they already know.
Sometimes I really feel we are in hamster cages when it comes to cancer.
They don't really want to cure us.
Why would we not cure cancer if we could? Corporations would make billions more from selling the cure than they would ever get from grants and donation.
so overly quixotic of you. Govts would most likely Sanction use of the cure and pass it off as welfare. No money just lots of $0 deposits into the bank. Even if corperations made some profit, what about the doctors, the radiologists who lost half their clients , the several hundred thousand oncologists whom are three years into med school , and the cancer institutes that have been invested in by some of those same corporations. It's chaos. That doesn't even mention the effects on the economy. What president or pm wants to take responsibility for that mayhem? - that's why we wouldn't cure cancer.
Curse you for calling me out for not thinking through my comments fully!
where are you getting your numbers from?
Exactly!
And that's why we haven't bothered curing rickets, smallpox... etc.
The vast majority of cancer workers would happily transition to other medical fields, and the other medical fields would be happy to have them, so there is no loss there.so overly quixotic of you. Govts would most likely Sanction use of the cure and pass it off as welfare. No money just lots of $0 deposits into the bank. Even if corperations made some profit, what about the doctors, the radiologists who lost half their clients , the several hundred thousand oncologists whom are three years into med school , and the cancer institutes that have been invested in by some of those same corporations. It's chaos. That doesn't even mention the effects on the economy. What president or pm wants to take responsibility for that mayhem? - that's why we wouldn't cure cancer.
And I call bull on that being the reason we "wouldn't cure cancer"
No they cant be cured currently. What knowledge are you suggesting is there that is not being used?ZURICH? Really? My daughter works there!
Well I think many cancers would and could be cured, if they would use knowledge that they already know.
Sometimes I really feel we are in hamster cages when it comes to cancer.
They don't really want to cure us.
no need to quarrel over rhetoric, I said ( jewish scientist said too) "wouldn't " not couldn't . He asked for speculation as soon as he said "if".Exactly!And that's why we haven't bothered curing rickets, smallpox... etc.
And you replied with nonsense.
Drugs, for one.No they cant be cured currently. What knowledge are you suggesting is there that is not being used?ZURICH? Really? My daughter works there!
Well I think many cancers would and could be cured, if they would use knowledge that they already know.
Sometimes I really feel we are in hamster cages when it comes to cancer.
They don't really want to cure us.
I don't believe they want to cure cancer. It wouldn't be profitable.
And as not being able to "cure", some are very able to be put into total "remission" and never occur again, i.e. "cured", in layman words.
I have lost my Brother in Law at 44, to a brain tumor, my best friend at 41 to ovarian, another very close friend at 58 to brain, and my nephew to pancreatic at 38. I am not remotely inferring that All cancers can be "cured", but I know people who have been cancer free for 20 years or more, never had another bout with cancer and died of other causes, natural or otherwise.
Huh?
Considering the "drain" on resources from treating cancer patients...
(And, having been peripherally involved in the "search" for cancer cures I can say that I've never met anyone in that "industry" that wasn't sincerelt hoping to find a cure).
"Implying"!I am not remotely inferring that...
yes, my error...thanks for the correctionHuh?
Considering the "drain" on resources from treating cancer patients...
(And, having been peripherally involved in the "search" for cancer cures I can say that I've never met anyone in that "industry" that wasn't sincerelt hoping to find a cure).
I am not saying that there aren't people who really want to cure it. I guess I am just cynical that those outside of those doing that research who make money from the procedures done for cancer patients, are possibly not all that motivated, for financial purposes.
Just think what it costs for all those Scans and surgeries....I mean 3 scans in 3 days? That is a lot of generated financial income.
Sorry. I am totally cynical about this, having watched this too many times.
"Implying"!I am not remotely inferring that...
I never do quotes right!! Sorry Sir Duck!
You can't make money off the dead though. Not curing it means that your financial resource eventually expires. Keeping people with cancer alive, and that usually means curing them, is the only way to be sure to stay in business. Because someone who survives cancer can stick around to catch some other disease and need treatment for that.
I am sorry, I know that comes across harsh, I couldn't think of a more pleasant way to say it. If I could have, I would have.
This isn't directly aimed at you, although you have "sided" with this argument: I'm always amazed at the people, generally conspiracy theorists, who claim that X or Y is actually available but is being withheld by "those in charge" because they wouldn't be able to make a profit if the wonder product was released. Cancer cures, water-powered car engines etc. etc.
We're talking about people who manage to sell bottled f*cking water and make it sound like a good idea for crying out loud!
If people queue up to buy water, and in some cases specify the "type" by name, don't you think that a way could be found to make money from a total cure for cancer? From water-powered engines 1?
Anyway, back on track...
Cancer: how much productivity is lost to industry through cancer patients having time off work? How much are insurance companies losing, (I dunno if they do pay out on that, but you get the idea)...
Sure there's money to be made from treating cancer, but I wonder what the other side of the equation is: what's the cost of doing so?
1 Hell, I have no interest in marketing (I side with Dilbert on the subject of marketing people) but I already have at least one idea to make a profit from selling water-powered engines 2.
2 Which is real bugger because to truly make a profit I'd have to invent one. Oh well...
A featherless DUCK?Been there, done that. (In a manner of speaking).
It can cause quite a shock at 4 AM though.
What the F*CK is that on my pillow?!!! Oh, yeah...
Not sure how you got that...
I was talking about luminous hair.
Edit: Oh. Hair implies no feathers, doesn't it?
Thank for your beginning, Sir Duck.This isn't directly aimed at you, although you have "sided" with this argument: I'm always amazed at the people, generally conspiracy theorists, who claim that X or Y is actually available but is being withheld by "those in charge" because they wouldn't be able to make a profit if the wonder product was released. Cancer cures, water-powered car engines etc. etc.
We're talking about people who manage to sell bottled f*cking water and make it sound like a good idea for crying out loud!
If people queue up to buy water, and in some cases specify the "type" by name, don't you think that a way could be found to make money from a total cure for cancer? From water-powered engines 1?
Anyway, back on track...
Cancer: how much productivity is lost to industry through cancer patients having time off work? How much are insurance companies losing, (I dunno if they do pay out on that, but you get the idea)...
Sure there's money to be made from treating cancer, but I wonder what the other side of the equation is: what's the cost of doing so?
1 Hell, I have no interest in marketing (I side with Dilbert on the subject of marketing people) but I already have at least one idea to make a profit from selling water-powered engines 2.
2 Which is real bugger because to truly make a profit I'd have to invent one. Oh well...
Many can fill job positions. Time off work, isn't a detriment usually for an employer, as they can find a qualified candidate. So they aren't going to lose, and eventually that employee who is ill won't be covered by insurance.
Would this help the insurance companies? Well, I agree with you on that, that finding a cure saves them money.
The cost of treating it, and sorry as this is again a recent experience, and very personal, is very high. So are the profits of treating it. The other problems are that people run out of money to BE treated. SOME tests aren't done, etc. because it won't be paid for, as they are not definitive in preventive care, though the other areas of patient care are still covered.
BUT the more scans and test done, the more revenue, for doctors, hospitals, It doesn't cost them much but overhead, after the equipment is purchased and paid for. Upgrading isn't that off the wall, and most are made now to be upgraded.
So, my question, I suppose, is. Why are they willing to do the testing, if it's paid for, but when it isn't, they aren't interestedl Why are they not interested in still finding a cure? When money is out of the equation?
Would it be financially more profitable to find acure?
Or is it more financially profitable to not?
My assumption (and yes that is I think the appropriate word) is financially based. Patient is covered, or can pay, great. Can't. Loss of revenue.
Sickness is revenue if covered. Illness = revenue.
I actually experienced this with my son. They sent him home, with a band aid, in a instance that even me, not a doctor knew something was very wrong....vomiting blood and bloody stool.... as he had no insurance. If I weren't such a bull headed redhead, and hadn't insisted he stay with us that night he'd be dead. By the time he went into seizures, and I called 911 .....he had lost half of his blood from internal bleeding.
He would have been dead by morning If I hadn't been so bullheaded.
And they would not have lost revenue.
There was no money to be made on my son. He was collateral damage in a sense.
I know I am very cynical about this. Conspiracy.....kind of a strong word from a duck who is molting....but....I really think, there is some truth in that. Proving it? Another question.
Bon Chance on your water cooling idea....but....where are you going to get the water?
Recycled....non potable?
Actually it is.
Even people who are off long-term - and hence have replacements found for them, start off being away from work short-term.
Here in the UK at least careful track is is kept of lost productivity due to sick days.
Who will take time to get up to speed = lost productivity.as they can find a qualified candidate.
But until "eventually" arrives they're still paying out.So they aren't going to lose, and eventually that employee who is ill won't be covered by insurance.
I couldn't say - it doesn't work like that over here.So, my question, I suppose, is. Why are they willing to do the testing, if it's paid for, but when it isn't, they aren't interested
If a cure was available they sell it = revenue. If the patient can't afford it = loss of revenue.My assumption (and yes that is I think the appropriate word) is financially based. Patient is covered, or can pay, great. Can't. Loss of revenue.
Sickness is revenue if covered. Illness = revenue.
Nah, I did state that it wasn't aimed at you.I know I am very cynical about this. Conspiracy.....kind of a strong word from a duck who is molting...
It doesn't matter - that's the beauty of my idea. Water-powered car engines, not water cooling.Bon Chance on your water cooling idea....but....where are you going to get the water?
With my method people could get their water from the nearest river for all I care.
Oh, declared interest. I was a cancer patient.
But it rejected me.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 3rd, 2013 at 05:57 AM.
Babe, cancer hits home for me too. They are still trying to determine if I have it. My grandmother just found out she is in the final stages of breast cancer as well. But you are making claims about the medical industries profits on cancer treatment. Do you actually know what the financial figures are for the medical industries? Private hospitals can turn people away but public hospitals cannot. They MUST treat patients whether they can pay or not. And it isn't exactly unheard of for patients to die with huge hospital bills racked up that end up never being paid because the estate can file bankruptcy. You also have to consider how much the insurance companies lose in covering patients that require more care than what they pay in covers. Insurance companies lobby their asses off in politics as much as any pharmaceutical company, so there is a balance there. Not to mention, if any researcher knew there was a cure and that it was being held back someone somewhere would spill the beans. The researchers are a passionate bunch of people. And they don't get paid as much as you may think. Granted it isn't minimum wage but they are not living in penthouses either.
Unless you can show some actual verifiable figures though, I'm just not buying that hospitals are making huge profits on cancer treatment. And not running tests and sending kids home with a bandaid when coughing up blood is not normal. That would normally spell a malpractice lawsuit that would cost them way more than any proper treatment given even if the treatment had never been paid for. Lawsuit avoidance is one reason they are more likely than not to do extensive testing. But you have to remember, with some tests, there is actually risk of causing harm. X-rays, though not a test for cancer, can cause cancer over time. And every treatment has side effects. They have to weigh the pros and cons of tests, treatments, versus unnecessary risks of harm and detrimental side effects.
Angelina Jolie just had a double mastectomy because she weighed the pros and cons and decided she would rather be without breasts than to go through the harsh treatments that are not guaranteed to work.
Patients also have an obligation to themselves to do as much research as they can. No single doctor knows everything. I have never had a doctor get mad at me if I bring him/her an article I find about some breakthrough treatment that is just being released. About half the time they weren't aware of it and had the knowledge necessary to be able to research it better than I could and would bring back more information for me. And once it even resulted in me getting a new medication as soon as it was available.
But back to my original point. If you think they are making huge profits please, provide the verifiable figures to support your suspicion. I think when you look it up you will be surprised.
To Babe
Re cancer
A cure for cancers would be developed and released and trumpeted to the skies. There is massive money to be made. There is wonderful publicity to be gained. There is fame and fortune.
Didn't state they were making huge profits. Pharmaceuticals companies make great profits.
However, the treatment of those patients, does equal revenue. No matter which way you look at it.
I remain cynical.
I sincerely hope that is true.
I however remain cynical.
It's fine to remain cynical, but revenue is not necessarily profit. If your expenses are more than your revenue, then you are losing money. Revenue minus expenses equals profits.
The cost of research and development is subtracted from the revenue, what is left is profit. Research and development doesn't happen for free.
If you were the only one cynical I wouldn't even respond. But there are some that are cynical because they believe the claims you buy into have merit. I am simply trying to help others keep things in perspective to avoid feeding into conspiracy theories.
No need to be cynical. When I say that drug companies would sell cancer cures and trumpet it up to the skies, I am not speculating. I am talking reality. Drug companies are already researching anti-cancer drugs big time. Billions of dollars of investment. There are a number of such drugs already released, and selling.
Mind you, I did not say drug companies would sell them cheaply. Very much to the contrary. Drug companies will extract every damn penny they can.
I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.
I remain cynical.
deleted, no point.
I am sure they would blow the trumpet. But who could the brass?
They have to recoop their investment into the research and that is understandable, that is business.
ONE of my eye meds...which is 1/4 of an ounce is 200.00
That waqs one of them and absolutely they don't make them cheap...trying having three of them...or four or five.....how many years does it take before it goes generic...and how many millions of millions of dollars have they made over and above their initial investiment of research, marketing, and production, in that, I believe 10 years.
I am not speaking of research scientists.
I happen to know a two of them up close and personal, and they are very very dedicated scientists. I have nothing but admiration for them, and understand that research takes time and money.
I still remain cynical. *S*.....and hope to be proven wrong in the long run.
you do know numbers, but you dont know biology well. Cancer is NOT a single cause disease, and no known drug can stop the uncontrolled mitosis/lack of apoptosis that are the major hallmarks of the majority of cancer species.I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.
I remain cynical.
I lost my mother to aggressive bone cancer after 5 years of fighting, had my father go through non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, and had my grandmother go through both ovarian and breast cancer. Anger at the cancer and cynicism is one thing, suspending all understanding of biology is another just to feel there is someone to blame other the crappy luck of the biology draw.
There is one kind of cancer that they are making headway on wiping out. Cervical cancer, usually caused by HPV. Most sexually active adults have HPV even if they have no symptoms. They carry it. But they found a vaccine for it. And they encourage all parents to vaccinate their children before they become sexually active. I have had my kids vaccinated and I am hopeful that my daughter will never have to worry about cervical cancer and confident that my sons will not be the bringers of the disease to women they have sex with.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/b...sk_factors.htm
I have stated, I am not a biologist. Fact.you do know numbers, but you dont know biology well. Cancer is NOT a single cause disease, and no known drug can stop the uncontrolled mitosis/lack of apoptosis that are the major hallmarks of the majority of cancer species.I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.
I remain cynical.
I lost my mother to aggressive bone cancer after 5 years of fighting, had my father go through non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, and had my grandmother go through both ovarian and breast cancer. Anger at the cancer and cynicism is one thing, suspending all understanding of biology is another just to feel there is someone to blame other the crappy luck of the biology draw.
I simply do not believe all that can be done is being done in many facets, including getting new drugs into the market.
Please read my response to Skeptic.
You are totally ignoring the biology of the situation though, and at this point it seems you are purposely refusing to learn from the information that is being provided to you. I did read your response's, and "evil greedy corporations" is NOT a valid answer to the problems of unresolved biology issues. Stop looking to blame someone for your loss.
Please show me where I said, verbatim "Evil Greedy Corporations"
Thank you.
Its in every post where you claim that they are withholding purported cures to cancer in favor of making money.
I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
Absolute hogwash. Engaging in sophistry as a windmill to tilt at will not change the attitude you have clearly expressed towards the Medical Field as well as repeated off topic posting in multiple threads asserting that Science, in general, is a failed enterprise as it "cannot answer your questions."
By making the assertion that they can cure cancer but refuse to do so for want of profit IS calling Corporations greedy and corrupt and there is no two ways about it. It is absolutely what you said.
If they are willing to prolong the cancer even though they can cure it but won't for the want of money- "evil greedy" quite simply applies. Denying it is nonsense.
Not only is the sophistry a red herring that removes attention from your inability/refusal to back up your numerous and repeated claims, but it fools No One. Additionally, it is still way off topic for the thread and stems from personal anger on your part.
Calling the member that called you out on your Bold Claims (As seems to be a common occurrence as of late) a "Bad Scientist" for clearly comprehending what you've said is a diversion and nothing more. Perhaps instead of attacking his character, you could provide support for your asserted conclusions, instead.
If you're going to make vague, dodgy statements like this, you should definitely expect people to read into what you are saying.
I stand by Paleo in what he said. I read the same thing from what you posted. To avoid confusion (and incurring the wrath of Neverfly), you should elucidate a little more.
If that is not what you meant, what did you mean? Can you at least see how what you said could have so easily misrepresented what you actually wanted to say?I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
In a series of posts on this thread now you have made these assertions:I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
1: A universal cure(s) for cancer are already known and identified
2: The cure(s) are currently in the possession of medical corporations
3: The corporations are purposely withholding the cures in favor of treatment drug profits.
4: people are dying as a result.
How does this not logically translate to "evil greedy corporations"?
I am not assuming I am making an educated assertion based of the evidence you are presenting in your posts.
I think that drugs that might help do not hit the market, and speaking USA only, why?If that is not what you meant, what did you mean? Can you at least see how what you said could have so easily misrepresented what you actually wanted to say?I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
Why does ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer still remain so fatal, when AIDS is now under (somewhat) control.
Is research more geared towards the most political diseases, or are all equally balanced in reviews?
I do not believe that emphasis is put on all forms of cancer. After 25 years, or more, some of the most fatal have no, and I mean ZERO effective treatments or at least possibilities of a long term remissions? I mean, long term as in maybe 3-5 years?
Is that clearer?
Why have these other (and many that I did not name) cancers, less prominent, not have some sort of breakthrough (even a TINY BIT) in two and a half decades?
Conspiracy? Not the word I'd use.
Political.....more likely.
!. I think they have leads, and possibilities which aren't being presented for whatever reason.In a series of posts on this thread now you have made these assertions:I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
1: A universal cure(s) for cancer are already known and identified
2: The cure(s) are currently in the possession of medical corporations
3: The corporations are purposely withholding the cures in favor of treatment drug profits.
4: people are dying as a result.
How does this not logically translate to "evil greedy corporations"?
I am not assuming I am making an educated assertion based of the evidence you are presenting in your posts.
2. I don't know that any medical corporation KNOWS the cure. I certainly wonder.
3. I think drug companies possibly have evidence that they have not presented.
4. Yes, I do think people are dying as a result.
Cause they are.
I do not believe in "EVIL CORPORATE" worlds.
I do not think that the general public is privy to a lot of information. I do think doctors use people as guinea pigs for pharmaceutical corporations, as I was briefly in that place till I said, NO.
I also never take a doctor verbetum unless I have a long time care relationship with them. Question. QUESTION... Question .
Read this again. I know what I am trying to say. I am not always good at putting it into words on paper. My deficiency.If that is not what you meant, what did you mean? Can you at least see how what you said could have so easily misrepresented what you actually wanted to say?I never EVER use that term.
EVER.
You read that into the post, as in your interpretation of my words.
You assumed.
Bad Scientist!
IK don't read the latter. *S*.....If you're going to make vague, dodgy statements like this, you should definitely expect people to read into what you are saying.
I stand by Paleo in what he said. I read the same thing from what you posted. To avoid confusion (and incurring the wrath of Neverfly), you should elucidate a little more.
sorry I not IK
Because AIDS has one single cause and is almost entirely preventable by taking simple precautions in life. Cancer has numerous causes, not all of them known. Some are avoidable to a degree others are not avoidable at all. Cervical cancer HAS been given a possibility of being wiped out via a vaccine for the most common std that almost all sexually active adults contract at some point and/or carry, HPV. I mentioned this earlier, maybe you glazed over it and decided to dismiss it.
political diseases? reviews? That lost me a bit. I think research is probably geared towards which cause gets the most private funding. There are many cancer research funds set up as charities, and many AIDS research funds set up as charities. AIDS is new, and scarey. Cancer has been around so long that it may be that the public has come to just accept it as a factual possibility in life. It doesn't discriminate against lifestyles, race or gender. Everyone has some risk of getting cancer, just like everyone has some risk of dying in a car accident or natural disaster. But with AIDS is preventable, so there is a feeling among those who have it that it targets certain communities. And the best treatment for AIDS is prevention of infection to start with. And for those who it is too late, the fact that they know what causes it, there is a higher chance of finding successful medications.Is research more geared towards the most political diseases, or are all equally balanced in reviews?
that is not evidence that no one is trying or that there is a cure hidden away from everyone so that some CEOs can keep getting rich.I do not believe that emphasis is put on all forms of cancer. After 25 years, or more, some of the most fatal have no, and I mean ZERO effective treatments or at least possibilities of a long term remissions? I mean, long term as in maybe 3-5 years?
Yes, you just reinforced the impression you already gave everyone about your beliefs that there is a conspiracy to keep the cure a secret.Is that clearer?
You don't have to use a word to express its very definition. Conspiracy theories are almost always political in nature.Why have these other (and many that I did not name) cancers, less prominent, not have some sort of breakthrough (even a TINY BIT) in two and a half decades?
Conspiracy? Not the word I'd use.
Political.....more likely.
If I said a particular woman slept with every guy she met without even asking names, one could rightfully say I called her a slut, even if I didn't use the actual word.
Why bother asking a doctor questions if you are not going to (take?) listen to them verbatim? Not listening to what they actually say can only lead to more confusion, frustration, distrust and anxiety.
At least you admit the bolded part. The next step is to learn not to blame or get upset at others for your own deficiencies. We can not read your mind, only the words you type on the screen. If you expect us to know what you are saying, you must learn to say what you mean, clearly, and be willing to objectively listen to others in order to clarify any misunderstandings on either side of the fence.
I have no intention of demeaning you or insulting you. Everyone on this forum, regardless of age, background or experience can and should try to learn to be better than they are in some way every day. Otherwise, what's the point of being here.
Re cancer treatments.
As has been said by others, cancer is not a single disease. It is hundreds. The task of finding effective treatments for all cancers is a gargantuan one. In spite of this, enormous progress has been made. 100 years ago, almost any cancer was a death sentence. Today, most cancers, if detected and treated early, have a much more favorable prognosis, and survival is now common. Breast cancer, for example, once was 100% fatal. Today the majority of sufferers survive.
Of course, drug companies will devote most of their efforts to more common cancers, so that they have a larger market for their products. This leaves a few rarer cancers without effective drug treatments. Drugs are not, though, the only treatments. Radiotherapy, and surgery are frequently effective. Chemotherapy can work on a wide range of cancers.
What evidence do you have of this?
Are you seriously going to try to compare AIDS, which has a single very well known cause in the virus HIV, to pancreatic and ovarian cancers? They both have multiple causes stemming from break downs in the DNA coding of cells. DNA coding problems are very very hard to fix. HIV is stopped with a little bit of latex on the cock. Its knowledge of preventative measures that is controlling HIV/AIDS.
Research is geared to those things that get funding from public and private places. BUT its all dependent on how complex the disease is as to how fast cures are found. Cancer is very complex and most often deals with the DNA of a cell. NOT an easy target to work with.
ARE you purposely ignoring the multiple times you have been told about the complexity of DNA causes diseases???
yes it is clear, you still think corporations are taking profit over helping people.
None of these assertions has any backing in evidence though. And the bottom line still boils down to the evil corporations will want the profits of treatments rather then the lives of people given a cure.!. I think they have leads, and possibilities which aren't being presented for whatever reason.
2. I don't know that any medical corporation KNOWS the cure. I certainly wonder.
3. I think drug companies possibly have evidence that they have not presented.
4. Yes, I do think people are dying as a result.
Cause they are.
I do not believe in "EVIL CORPORATE" worlds.
I do not think that the general public is privy to a lot of information. I do think doctors use people as guinea pigs for pharmaceutical corporations, as I was briefly in that place till I said, NO.
I also never take a doctor verbetum unless I have a long time care relationship with them. Question. QUESTION... Question .
DO you have ANY evidence to back ANY of your assertions here? Or is it all just generalized anger at the medic-pharm complex?
| « can someone explain the biological reason as to why someone doesn't like my short story? | Artificial Biosphere » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
