Notices
Results 1 to 79 of 79
Like Tree17Likes
  • 2 Post By pavlos
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By Zwolver
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 2 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum

Thread: Too old to be Spider-Man?(GMO)

  1. #1 Too old to be Spider-Man?(GMO) 
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2
    All the research I have seen seems aimed at embryonic development. Ex. Doug turnbull's work on three parent children.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by pavlos; July 2nd, 2013 at 03:23 PM. Reason: spelling
    Neverfly and jessyc like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    My worry is that it may lead to some new form of cancer.-then again.... Everything nowadays causes cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    42
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    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
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    42
    He was born spiderman, the spider bite merely caused an internal reaction to what was already there, ty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    He was born spiderman, the spider bite merely caused an internal reaction to what was already there, ty.
    Wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    He was born spiderman, the spider bite merely caused an internal reaction to what was already there, ty.
    Totally incorrect per spiderman cannon
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    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.
    Whenever I read a post by you, I lose the ability to form coherent sentences for 15 to 20 seconds. It's frightening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    spiderman cannon
    The preferred method of travel for Spider-Man.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,676
    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..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    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.
    In the up-coming story line "Family Business" Peter's long lost sister is introduced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    In the up-coming story line "Family Business" Peter's long lost sister is introduced.
    And that's relevant because...?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    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?
    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'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I would allow myself to be modified to have bioluminescent hair. That's science I can get behind.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I would allow myself to be modified to have bioluminescent hair. That's science I can get behind.
    Or freckles. that would make it possible to play connect the dots in the dark. :P
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    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.
    In the up-coming story line "Family Business" Peter's long lost sister is introduced.
    Where did she get lost at?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    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?
    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'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.
    It's my life long dream to become Arachnocampo Man!
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I would allow myself to be modified to have bioluminescent hair.
    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...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    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?
    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'd like to be able to glow in the dark like they have been doing with some plants.
    love the smell of glow sticks in the cancer ward...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    The imagery in my head right now is so many shades of wrong right now....
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I would allow myself to be modified to have bio-luminescent hair. That's science I can get behind.
    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?
    babe likes this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    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
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    [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.
    Dreamraider likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Bio-luminescent hair is not possible.
    Curse you for calling me out for not thinking through my comments fully!
    seagypsy likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    Corporations would make billions more from selling the cure than they would ever get from grants and donation.
    where are you getting your numbers from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    that's why we wouldn't cure cancer.
    Exactly!
    And that's why we haven't bothered curing rickets, smallpox... etc.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    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.
    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.

    And I call bull on that being the reason we "wouldn't cure cancer"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    My worry is that it may lead to some new form of cancer.-then again.... Everything nowadays causes cancer.
    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 they cant be cured currently. What knowledge are you suggesting is there that is not being used?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    that's why we wouldn't cure cancer.
    Exactly!And that's why we haven't bothered curing rickets, smallpox... etc.
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    He asked for speculation as soon as he said "if".
    And you replied with nonsense.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    My worry is that it may lead to some new form of cancer.-then again.... Everything nowadays causes cancer.
    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 they cant be cured currently. What knowledge are you suggesting is there that is not being used?
    Drugs, for one.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe they want to cure cancer. It wouldn't be profitable.
    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).

    I am not remotely inferring that...
    "Implying"!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe they want to cure cancer. It wouldn't be profitable.
    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).

    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.

    I am not remotely inferring that...
    "Implying"!
    yes, my error...thanks for the correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    I never do quotes right!! Sorry Sir Duck!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    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.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    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...
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I would allow myself to be modified to have bioluminescent hair.
    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...
    A featherless DUCK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Not sure how you got that...
    I was talking about luminous hair.


    Edit: Oh. Hair implies no feathers, doesn't it?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    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...
    Thank for your beginning, Sir Duck.

    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Time off work, isn't a detriment usually for an employer
    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.

    as they can find a qualified candidate.
    Who will take time to get up to speed = lost productivity.

    So they aren't going to lose, and eventually that employee who is ill won't be covered by insurance.
    But until "eventually" arrives they're still paying out.

    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
    I couldn't say - it doesn't work like that over here.

    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.
    If a cure was available they sell it = revenue. If the patient can't afford it = loss of revenue.

    I know I am very cynical about this. Conspiracy.....kind of a strong word from a duck who is molting...
    Nah, I did state that it wasn't aimed at you.

    Bon Chance on your water cooling idea....but....where are you going to get the water?
    It doesn't matter - that's the beauty of my idea. Water-powered car engines, not water cooling.
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    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.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    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.
    I sincerely hope that is true.

    I however remain cynical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    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.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    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.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    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.
    I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.

    I remain cynical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    deleted, no point.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    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 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    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.
    I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.

    I remain cynical.
    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 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.
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    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
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    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.
    I am married to a CPA....I know accounting. I know numbers.

    I remain cynical.
    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 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 have stated, I am not a biologist. Fact.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    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.
    seagypsy likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Its in every post where you claim that they are withholding purported cures to cancer in favor of making money.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I simply do not believe all that can be done is being done in many facets, including getting new drugs into the market.
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    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?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    In a series of posts on this thread now you have made these assertions:

    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.
    Flick Montana and Neverfly like this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    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 think that drugs that might help do not hit the market, and speaking USA only, why?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    In a series of posts on this thread now you have made these assertions:

    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 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 .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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!
    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?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I simply do not believe all that can be done is being done in many facets, including getting new drugs into the market.
    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.
    IK don't read the latter. *S*.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    sorry I not IK
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    I think that drugs that might help do not hit the market, and speaking USA only, why?

    Why does ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer still remain so fatal, when AIDS is now under (somewhat) control.
    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.

    Is research more geared towards the most political diseases, or are all equally balanced in reviews?
    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.

    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?
    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.

    Is that clearer?
    Yes, you just reinforced the impression you already gave everyone about your beliefs that there is a conspiracy to keep the cure a secret.

    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.
    You don't have to use a word to express its very definition. Conspiracy theories are almost always political in nature.

    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.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    I also never take a doctor verbetum unless I have a long time care relationship with them. Question. QUESTION... Question .
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babe
    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.
    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.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    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.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    I think that drugs that might help do not hit the market, and speaking USA only, why?
    What evidence do you have of this?

    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Why does ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer still remain so fatal, when AIDS is now under (somewhat) control.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Is research more geared towards the most political diseases, or are all equally balanced in reviews?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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?
    ARE you purposely ignoring the multiple times you have been told about the complexity of DNA causes diseases???

    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    yes it is clear, you still think corporations are taking profit over helping people.
    seagypsy likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    In a series of posts on this thread now you have made these assertions:

    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 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 .
    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.

    DO you have ANY evidence to back ANY of your assertions here? Or is it all just generalized anger at the medic-pharm complex?
    seagypsy likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Gmo
    By laza in forum Biology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2013, 01:35 PM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: May 19th, 2012, 01:08 AM
  3. Why does man perceive god made Man in his image
    By Genesis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 06:25 AM
  4. How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  5. GMO
    By Thomas999 in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 11th, 2007, 04:42 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •