Some of those vaccine studies were considered failures because they only showed a 40% reduction in infection rate. For dealing with the public health disaster that is the HIV/AIDS pandemic, that is not enough to deal with the human behavior to increase risky behavior when they think they're protected. For reducing the odds that your soldiers will be permanently taken off active duty, it is plenty enough.
Evidence you want? The HIV western blots I ran for the military for years would sometimes turn up soldiers who had a strong immune protection to HIV, but not have results consistent with infection. Anecdotal, yes, but you're not getting anything else.
How do you think humans got HIV to begin with, screwing chimpanzees? (Really, you thought that?) It was from the butchering of chimpanzees, blood spatter getting into eyes/mouth/nose/etc. Blood spatter, like in wartime.
The military vaccinates their people against anything they might face on the job. This includes diseases for which there are commercially available vaccines (measles, etc) and diseases for which there are not (HIV, soon Ebola).
Really, like what? Most of the items cited known from studies of accidental exposure cases and animal studies.
The Nazis were just pricks who assumed humans to be a special creation from animals, thus didn't think the animal research was relevant. Given the main intent of their research was to kill Jews, it is not surprising their 'studies' involved killing Jews.
It was studies of accident victims in Russia and studies in dogs which revealed why it is a person dies from the cold. Certain transmembrane ion transporters begin to fail at cold temperatures, producing a severe ionic imbalance in the blood, which then interferes with nervous conduction within the heart... resulting in death due to cardiac disfunction. When you pump the blood full of chelation agents, to correct the resulting ionic imbalance, you get mammals continuing to live at much colder temperatures than is otherwise possible.
These results are now being used to develop hypothermia treatments to restart the heart and oxygen distribution while the body is still cold. What did the Nazis give us? Oh yeah, when freezing to death, your eyes will roll up in your head...
Unless you take the time to dig up your tulip bulbs each year- the number of tulips each consecutive year goes down.
This is a partial fiction.
Freshly planted tulips bloom so well the first year because they were fertilized heavily and not allowed to bloom the year before. The second year blooms will look small and pathetic in comparison. This is a designed business strategy that encourages re-purchasing tulips each year.
The second aspect is that the Dutch growers have been breeding for tulips which require being dug up and separated for multi-year growth. More wild tulips naturally spread their bulbs through the soil, but breeders have been selecting those tulips which don't spread through the soil... because they're easier to find and process for shipping each year when they dig them up. This seems to be accidental, as most people (even plants-men) don't account for evolution in their business strategies.
What allows this pattern to happen is that Tulip bulbs are always new from the last years growth. The bulb you plant one year is consumed by the plant in making the bulbs for next year.
Daffodil bulbs persist year to year, with new side growths producing new bulbs.
This is the result of parents not allowing the schools to have any authority in disciplining the kids. The kids need to be disciplined and the parents won't do it, so the schools punt the responsibility to the courts.
This is an explicit result of what you're thinking... You're the ultimate problem here.
Which is actually why coconuts are being selected and bred to have smaller fruit. Most coconut palms grown in landscaping in appropriate parts of the country have much smaller than wild type fruits.
A masters doesn't really show you can do anything more than a thesis-writing course in undergrad. A masters degree shows you have proficiency in a single topic, which may or may not have any relevance to the jobs available. If you choose your topic well, it will help you. If you choose poorly, you are only showing you are motivated and able to learn.
A friend of mine received a masters in computer animation. Her project was learning to use a Maya package to simulate fabric... exactly what the package was designed for. She used it to get work on a few computer animated movies. She chose well.
In my field, a masters is a consolation prize for failing out of a PhD program. It will still assist in getting a job, as HR drones will often prefer a Ms over a Bs, with the same experience otherwise.
In comparison, a PhD will mean you're very motivated and are good at learning, as well as have produced some novel work/knowledge/etc along the way.
If every deer in the USA dropped dead right now, would you expect to find mass graveyards? Mass fossil graveyards are very unusual things. There is no expectation of ever finding a boneyard coinciding with the KT boundary event.
To "go ahead and try to concentrate/ weaponize without killing yourself" is easy. To successfully attack a population in the WMD style, takes a bit more.
Finding a strain of anthrax which is suitible for attacking people would generally require testing on people. This is a simple concept, but apparently hard for the wackjobs to pull off. Perhaps the blatant horror of bioweopons development scared the actual researchers doing the worrk?
Anthrax spores clump together, but that can be resolved if one is aware of the problem. The size of particles which will float in the air into the deeps of your lungs is known, as are several methods for attaining those partical sizes. Again, the wackjobs apparently did not do the research needed to know how to do what they wanted.
Competant chemists were able to do synthetic chemistry... yay... but chemists and biochemists are not biologists, they don't deal with living things. How many experts are there on germ warfare, a subject which has rarely been applied? Microbiologists, pathologists, epidemiologists, beer-brewers, etc... they're all experts on some of the skills needed for germ warfare.
I would like to hope that the various wackjobs aren't willing to do the research and that those who are willing to do the research are unlikely to be the wackjobs... how many plots have been foiled because the dumbass thought something they saw on TV/game/internets would work as planned?
Miscarriages are often blamed on chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo, or defects in the mother's reproductive system.
The 60 mutations being discussed are in the category of point mutations. Chromosomal abnormalities are so much more dramatic of a problem, that the vast majority of them result in fatal consequences before birth. It may very well be that if you have a chromosomal abnormality, you may also have a higher rate of point mutations, but they are different categories.
It is actually very easy, if you have any bio lab experience at all. The likelyhood of killing yourself goes up dramatically if you have no idea about contamination control and biohazard personal protection equipment.
Another aspect of this technique is that some signals from the brain may be getting through, but they're not strong enough to get the leg muscles to contract properly. In this scenario, the device would be acting as an amplifier. Giving the leg muscles enough signal strength to contract, but introducing noise to the signal recieved from the brain.
Biology was not always my thing... but complexity always drew my interest and it was a natural progression to get there. A proper understanding of biology requires a decent grasp of chemistry and physics too. (though, many get away without it);-)
Strangely enough, there is a region of the USA referred to as the 'Stroke Belt'... so figuring out what is going wrong there and preventing it would actually be a really helpful thing... but you're right, it wouldn't be a 'cure'.
I am aware of the fact that cancer forming cells exist and are created naturally in the body, as well as the process of apoptosis, or the natural eradication of such. It has been said that the average human technically contracts cancer several times in their lifetime, usually with their immune system being strong enough to combat it early in life. The question still remains. What has been the root cause of all of these cancers over the last 100 years? I find it ridiculous that people cannot fathom the concept that some of these cancers, like other genetically engineered diseases (Smallpox soup with a dash of Ebola anyone?) were possibly purposefully mutated and/or perpetuated by design.
Root cause? We get cancer in the same way that iron rusts. It is inevitable as a consequence of the chemistry of how we are alive. There is no need for an intelligent agent to intervene to give us any of those cancers. Yes it is possible (and easily fathomable), but there is no evidence for it and thus the null hypothesis (that there is no such agent) is what we logically have to go with.
We read not long ago that the tap water of over 30 US cities contained hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen. While we may argue that this got into the water stream naturally(which it can), the real question is what exactly will be the EPAs final "safe" levels, and who ultimately controls the EPA? Water is what sustains life, not money, or a nice car, or cheap gas. Textbook definition of a target-rich environment.
Nobody with any sense claims that something which happened naturally must be 'ok'. If your argument held any weight with reality, the EPA would never ever reduce 'safe levels' upon further research... and would likely increase the 'safe levels'. What will be the final 'safe level' is not something which can be known. All we can know is that an arbitrary level does or does not cause a level of injury we think is acceptable. At some level, the injury caused by hexavalent chromium (or other things) decreases to equal to the injury caused by water. (Even pure H2O causes cancer at a low rate, by the radiation it emits from the spontaneous decay of oxygen.)
And do you cure cancer, or do you eradicate it by force? I know we have made many advances with cancer, but chemotherapy and surgery are still the primary forms of treatment, and are not true cures. Perpetuating remission treatments is very expensive and ensures revenue streams while ultimately still leaving deaths door slightly ajar.
How is an eradication by force not a cure? (If I have cancer in my kidney and I discard my kidney, I no longer have cancer. I'm cured!) What do you mean by a 'true cure'? Death's door is always wide open, no matter what we may do. Are you approaching this from a religious perspective?
This argument can easily go both ways. You cannot prove that there is not, while it is fairly easy for anyone to prove that greed and corruption have warped entire nations. Again, perpetuating treatments is far more profitable than finding or releasing a cure, which feeds both the revenue issue(greed) as well as the resource management issue(deaths). I sincerely appreciate the work that is done by the entire scientific and medical community, but it is still difficult to prove me wrong.
Actually the argument can't easily go both ways. There is no way to prove something does not exist/happen/etc that we just haven't seen yet. (This is rather a basic logical result and why we don't study the giant invisible squid living in the sun...) However, if there was a cure, then there would be those who were cured... and those people would be very loud about it.
Even if the govt was operating as you claim... It wouldn't do so by encouraging death. Death is a horribly expensive process, as all the training/knowledge/etc contained in the person is lost. The
These are being kept in the event that *a* Government may need to "create" a way of culling the population in the future.
This is why big pharma is allowed to continue to "treat" major killers such as cancer and HIV/AIDS rather than cure, to ensure deaths, even if a cure already exists.
We cure cancer every day and do so reliably. The problem is that every single cancer is a unique disease that may need a unique cure. There are millions of cancers which need cured... and we do so for about half of them. All of those breast cancers you hear about? They're independent diseases which happen to look and work similar to each other.
You claim there are cures for HIV/AIDS. How many people were treated with this miracle before the government types put it under lock and key? (Zero) With nobody cured with the treatment, you can't claim there to be a cure!
There is one person on the planet who is described as having been cured of HIV/AIDS. He did it by recieving an immune system transplant from a compatible donor who happened to have a pronounced genetic resistance to the virus. Everyone who cares knows how this works, because the method was freely given to everybody on the planet, and why it won't work for most people. (Go study immunology if you want to figure out the second part.)
You obviously have abso-fucking-lutely no clue how complicated and difficult these problems are. Why do you think we have people who spend their entire lives studying these damned things in order to make the advances we have? Why don't we get rid of biologists and doctors and just refer to some random jackass on the street?
This is why city traffic engineers are given lists of most accident-prone intersections/etc... so they can go examine the site and determine what, if anything, can be done to fix the problem. Sometimes the problem is caused by people speedinig, but the fix is to alter the timing of the signal to account for how people actually behave.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing you can't actually sign away your rights in this way.
Thank you for the informative reply. Most times I just encounter knee-jerk responses that don't hold up.
Some of those vaccine studies were considered failures because they only showed a 40% reduction in infection rate. For dealing with the public health disaster that is the HIV/AIDS pandemic, that is not enough to deal with the human behavior to increase risky behavior when they think they're protected. For reducing the odds that your soldiers will be permanently taken off active duty, it is plenty enough.
Evidence you want? The HIV western blots I ran for the military for years would sometimes turn up soldiers who had a strong immune protection to HIV, but not have results consistent with infection. Anecdotal, yes, but you're not getting anything else.
How do you think humans got HIV to begin with, screwing chimpanzees? (Really, you thought that?) It was from the butchering of chimpanzees, blood spatter getting into eyes/mouth/nose/etc. Blood spatter, like in wartime.
Oh yes, I actually am a biologist.
The military vaccinates their people against anything they might face on the job. This includes diseases for which there are commercially available vaccines (measles, etc) and diseases for which there are not (HIV, soon Ebola).
Really, like what? Most of the items cited known from studies of accidental exposure cases and animal studies.
The Nazis were just pricks who assumed humans to be a special creation from animals, thus didn't think the animal research was relevant. Given the main intent of their research was to kill Jews, it is not surprising their 'studies' involved killing Jews.
It was studies of accident victims in Russia and studies in dogs which revealed why it is a person dies from the cold. Certain transmembrane ion transporters begin to fail at cold temperatures, producing a severe ionic imbalance in the blood, which then interferes with nervous conduction within the heart... resulting in death due to cardiac disfunction. When you pump the blood full of chelation agents, to correct the resulting ionic imbalance, you get mammals continuing to live at much colder temperatures than is otherwise possible.
These results are now being used to develop hypothermia treatments to restart the heart and oxygen distribution while the body is still cold. What did the Nazis give us? Oh yeah, when freezing to death, your eyes will roll up in your head...
Unless you take the time to dig up your tulip bulbs each year- the number of tulips each consecutive year goes down.
This is a partial fiction.
Freshly planted tulips bloom so well the first year because they were fertilized heavily and not allowed to bloom the year before. The second year blooms will look small and pathetic in comparison. This is a designed business strategy that encourages re-purchasing tulips each year.
The second aspect is that the Dutch growers have been breeding for tulips which require being dug up and separated for multi-year growth. More wild tulips naturally spread their bulbs through the soil, but breeders have been selecting those tulips which don't spread through the soil... because they're easier to find and process for shipping each year when they dig them up. This seems to be accidental, as most people (even plants-men) don't account for evolution in their business strategies.
What allows this pattern to happen is that Tulip bulbs are always new from the last years growth. The bulb you plant one year is consumed by the plant in making the bulbs for next year.
Daffodil bulbs persist year to year, with new side growths producing new bulbs.
There's a very few organisms which require silicon for their health and function... I suspect this is what was being referred to.
This is the result of parents not allowing the schools to have any authority in disciplining the kids. The kids need to be disciplined and the parents won't do it, so the schools punt the responsibility to the courts.
This is an explicit result of what you're thinking... You're the ultimate problem here.
Which is actually why coconuts are being selected and bred to have smaller fruit. Most coconut palms grown in landscaping in appropriate parts of the country have much smaller than wild type fruits.
A masters doesn't really show you can do anything more than a thesis-writing course in undergrad. A masters degree shows you have proficiency in a single topic, which may or may not have any relevance to the jobs available. If you choose your topic well, it will help you. If you choose poorly, you are only showing you are motivated and able to learn.
A friend of mine received a masters in computer animation. Her project was learning to use a Maya package to simulate fabric... exactly what the package was designed for. She used it to get work on a few computer animated movies. She chose well.
In my field, a masters is a consolation prize for failing out of a PhD program. It will still assist in getting a job, as HR drones will often prefer a Ms over a Bs, with the same experience otherwise.
In comparison, a PhD will mean you're very motivated and are good at learning, as well as have produced some novel work/knowledge/etc along the way.
If every deer in the USA dropped dead right now, would you expect to find mass graveyards? Mass fossil graveyards are very unusual things. There is no expectation of ever finding a boneyard coinciding with the KT boundary event.
Given that dinosaurs rose to prominence after mammals were already scurrying around... I don't think the stress of the mammals is relevant.
To "go ahead and try to concentrate/ weaponize without killing yourself" is easy. To successfully attack a population in the WMD style, takes a bit more.
Finding a strain of anthrax which is suitible for attacking people would generally require testing on people. This is a simple concept, but apparently hard for the wackjobs to pull off. Perhaps the blatant horror of bioweopons development scared the actual researchers doing the worrk?
Anthrax spores clump together, but that can be resolved if one is aware of the problem. The size of particles which will float in the air into the deeps of your lungs is known, as are several methods for attaining those partical sizes. Again, the wackjobs apparently did not do the research needed to know how to do what they wanted.
Competant chemists were able to do synthetic chemistry... yay... but chemists and biochemists are not biologists, they don't deal with living things. How many experts are there on germ warfare, a subject which has rarely been applied? Microbiologists, pathologists, epidemiologists, beer-brewers, etc... they're all experts on some of the skills needed for germ warfare.
I would like to hope that the various wackjobs aren't willing to do the research and that those who are willing to do the research are unlikely to be the wackjobs... how many plots have been foiled because the dumbass thought something they saw on TV/game/internets would work as planned?
Miscarriages are often blamed on chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo, or defects in the mother's reproductive system.
The 60 mutations being discussed are in the category of point mutations. Chromosomal abnormalities are so much more dramatic of a problem, that the vast majority of them result in fatal consequences before birth. It may very well be that if you have a chromosomal abnormality, you may also have a higher rate of point mutations, but they are different categories.
It is actually very easy, if you have any bio lab experience at all. The likelyhood of killing yourself goes up dramatically if you have no idea about contamination control and biohazard personal protection equipment.
that would be what copyright is for.
Another aspect of this technique is that some signals from the brain may be getting through, but they're not strong enough to get the leg muscles to contract properly. In this scenario, the device would be acting as an amplifier. Giving the leg muscles enough signal strength to contract, but introducing noise to the signal recieved from the brain.
Biology was not always my thing... but complexity always drew my interest and it was a natural progression to get there. A proper understanding of biology requires a decent grasp of chemistry and physics too. (though, many get away without it) ;-)
Strangely enough, there is a region of the USA referred to as the 'Stroke Belt'... so figuring out what is going wrong there and preventing it would actually be a really helpful thing... but you're right, it wouldn't be a 'cure'.
I am aware of the fact that cancer forming cells exist and are created naturally in the body, as well as the process of apoptosis, or the natural eradication of such. It has been said that the average human technically contracts cancer several times in their lifetime, usually with their immune system being strong enough to combat it early in life. The question still remains. What has been the root cause of all of these cancers over the last 100 years? I find it ridiculous that people cannot fathom the concept that some of these cancers, like other genetically engineered diseases (Smallpox soup with a dash of Ebola anyone?) were possibly purposefully mutated and/or perpetuated by design.
Root cause? We get cancer in the same way that iron rusts. It is inevitable as a consequence of the chemistry of how we are alive. There is no need for an intelligent agent to intervene to give us any of those cancers. Yes it is possible (and easily fathomable), but there is no evidence for it and thus the null hypothesis (that there is no such agent) is what we logically have to go with.
We read not long ago that the tap water of over 30 US cities contained hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen. While we may argue that this got into the water stream naturally(which it can), the real question is what exactly will be the EPAs final "safe" levels, and who ultimately controls the EPA? Water is what sustains life, not money, or a nice car, or cheap gas. Textbook definition of a target-rich environment.
Nobody with any sense claims that something which happened naturally must be 'ok'. If your argument held any weight with reality, the EPA would never ever reduce 'safe levels' upon further research... and would likely increase the 'safe levels'. What will be the final 'safe level' is not something which can be known. All we can know is that an arbitrary level does or does not cause a level of injury we think is acceptable. At some level, the injury caused by hexavalent chromium (or other things) decreases to equal to the injury caused by water. (Even pure H2O causes cancer at a low rate, by the radiation it emits from the spontaneous decay of oxygen.)
And do you cure cancer, or do you eradicate it by force? I know we have made many advances with cancer, but chemotherapy and surgery are still the primary forms of treatment, and are not true cures. Perpetuating remission treatments is very expensive and ensures revenue streams while ultimately still leaving deaths door slightly ajar.
How is an eradication by force not a cure? (If I have cancer in my kidney and I discard my kidney, I no longer have cancer. I'm cured!) What do you mean by a 'true cure'? Death's door is always wide open, no matter what we may do. Are you approaching this from a religious perspective?
This argument can easily go both ways. You cannot prove that there is not, while it is fairly easy for anyone to prove that greed and corruption have warped entire nations. Again, perpetuating treatments is far more profitable than finding or releasing a cure, which feeds both the revenue issue(greed) as well as the resource management issue(deaths). I sincerely appreciate the work that is done by the entire scientific and medical community, but it is still difficult to prove me wrong.
Actually the argument can't easily go both ways. There is no way to prove something does not exist/happen/etc that we just haven't seen yet. (This is rather a basic logical result and why we don't study the giant invisible squid living in the sun...) However, if there was a cure, then there would be those who were cured... and those people would be very loud about it.
Even if the govt was operating as you claim... It wouldn't do so by encouraging death. Death is a horribly expensive process, as all the training/knowledge/etc contained in the person is lost. The
For the original parent, no... but for any other witnesses, yes, maybe. Besides, sometimes I just can't ignore the crazy any more and have to respond.
These are being kept in the event that *a* Government may need to "create" a way of culling the population in the future.
This is why big pharma is allowed to continue to "treat" major killers such as cancer and HIV/AIDS rather than cure, to ensure deaths, even if a cure already exists.
We cure cancer every day and do so reliably. The problem is that every single cancer is a unique disease that may need a unique cure. There are millions of cancers which need cured... and we do so for about half of them. All of those breast cancers you hear about? They're independent diseases which happen to look and work similar to each other.
You claim there are cures for HIV/AIDS. How many people were treated with this miracle before the government types put it under lock and key? (Zero) With nobody cured with the treatment, you can't claim there to be a cure!
There is one person on the planet who is described as having been cured of HIV/AIDS. He did it by recieving an immune system transplant from a compatible donor who happened to have a pronounced genetic resistance to the virus. Everyone who cares knows how this works, because the method was freely given to everybody on the planet, and why it won't work for most people. (Go study immunology if you want to figure out the second part.)
You obviously have abso-fucking-lutely no clue how complicated and difficult these problems are. Why do you think we have people who spend their entire lives studying these damned things in order to make the advances we have? Why don't we get rid of biologists and doctors and just refer to some random jackass on the street?
This is why city traffic engineers are given lists of most accident-prone intersections/etc... so they can go examine the site and determine what, if anything, can be done to fix the problem. Sometimes the problem is caused by people speedinig, but the fix is to alter the timing of the signal to account for how people actually behave.
agreed.
We move around and grab at things. Our eyes occasionally return the wrong distance, but upon moving/etc the problem is realized.
We cure cancer all the time.
...just not your cancer, sorry.