All joking aside, this shows how flawed the study of human cancer in rodents is. It's true, many rodents are very succeptible to cancer, most of the time from stuff which is not carcinogenic to a person. So, if we relied on rats to tell us about human cancer, we'd probably have to live in bubbles, but we, uh, don't.
I wish these scientists would figure this stuff out about human beings instead of mice
Damn straight. Scientists have been curing human cancer in mice for over ten years now, and have never been able to extrapolate the data to humans. You think by now that they would have gotten the message. Humans and mice are not anthropomorhic, and are so entirely dissimilar that any research in this direction will prove futile.
Well, even brigher boy, clinical studies, autopsy, in vitro research, and epidemiology. Not to mention the countless people who volunteer themselves for research. Suddenly your 2c seems worth about 0c.
Read their "bunk", their sources, chase it up yourself if you're so damn sure. Then come back with a real opinion. And no, they are not fronts for anyone. They all come from the same background as other MD's, but have taken a stand because they are sick and tired of seeing science held up by false practice.
Correct, and I would just like to say that I'm sick of articles appearing on/. hailing a new medical success theory which has only been applied to animals. Don't people realise yet that it is frontpage news right now, but when they attempt to extrapolate the data to a human, it will invariable, as it always has done before, fail. And no-one will want to publish the failure of the technique on a front page, or likely not bother to report it. Face it people, they have been curing human cancer in rats for ten years, and have never been able to use the data. We're far too different. Hell, even some men and women are so different as to skew test data. Learn the facts folks, animal experimentation gets us nowhere, and often sends us backwards.
They tried, they failed. Using animals as a model for human problems in experimentation is intrinsically flawed by the species barrier. No medical success can be attributed to animal experimentation. Don't believe me? Have a look at the AFMA website, and give the facts your consideration. Honestly folks, let's get real. Opposition to these experiments are not anti science, they are pro science. Science that WORKS.
They have taken full organs from genetically engineered animals, and placed them into animals of a different speciesBR> ...And the whole project was a ctastrophic failure. The idea was to engineer pigs with the DNA of another animal, in the hope that this new "common bond" would mean that the animal on the recieving end of the transplantation, in that case, a babboon, would not reject the heart. Hundereds of babboons did not survive the surgery, and of the few that did (through the help of massive amounts of anti-rejection drugs which also produced massive cancers etc.) they died shortly after, in agony with massive complications. The company behind the project, Imutran, collapsed. To avoid a scandal (as they initially hailed the project as a success) they moved to America, and there has been no word since of how they have progressed, mainly because they operate entirely behindd closed doors now. Full diaries of the failed experiments were leaked, and they won't allow such an occurence a second time.
Xenotransplantation may never work, because animals are far too different from one another. Merely modifying DNA is not going to break down the species barriers that prevent this from succeeding. It would also create fresh problems, such as making another species vulnerable to the diseases of another.
Anyway folks, before you start hailing this as a success for medicine, learn the facts. At present, we can't prevent human organ rejection, let alone animal. The companies who conduct these experiments are the ones who market the anti-rejection drugs, and hence have a financial interest, certainly not a benevolent one, as has been evidenced by prior conduct. So, no, xenotransplantation has not been conducted, and never will. With Japan's approval, today marks a very sad day for the future of medicinal science.
Yeah, this manner of legislatoin is slowly but surely bringing my worst fears into reality. I love living in a world where I can act like an international citizen. I can go from country to country, experience each has to offer, and avoid the pitfalls present in any particular one by simply not going there. I live in England, and whilst I like many aspects of life here, I see freedoms being stripped away over time, and I sure don't like it. So, what can I do? Leave. I'm not tied to the nation, I can bugger off without a moments thought. However, when I see an international attempt to subvert the freedoms I enjoy in a supposedly free country, moving to another affected country isn't going to get me anywhere. So, where can I go from here?
I guess I'll be looking for a RedHat booth at my next anti-government, milita-sponsored gunshow.
Well why not? Subversive literature, espescially rough guides to the law, how to defend yourself against police, etc. have always been common at those. I'm sure that privacy software has featured more and more in recent years. And now that the DMCA attacks any US based attempt to circumvent FBI plans, for instance, I feel much happier with companies like Mandrake who inadvertantly offer protection, for the price of an ISO download.
Yeah, You're referring to Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The campaign to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences, a vivisection company (not a phharm company) with nothing but bad history. I'm glad you mention it, and I'm surprised that their case didn't get more press. All HLS had to do was threaten the host (envirolink.org) with the DMCA with copyright infringement, and they removed the site. SHAC just re-hosted in a few hours. It was a typical move by HLS, and a dangerous precedent.
Very true. www.shac.net, the website for animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, was removed from it's American based server (though later re-hosted outside America) due to a legal threat citing the DMCA against the host. The startling thing is that HLS (the swines invovled) are a UK based company, and they were objecting to "copyright infringement", and the said copyright was not protected under US jurisdiction. f00k that!
Be the impact major or minor, this is democracy in action. Take your chance! What harm can it do? I'm only jealous that as a European I cannot participate.
Bill gates is quoted as saying that the settlement was "fair and reasonable". This to me sounds like an admission that he was knowingly pushing the boundaries of the law to unacceptable levels before the judgement. Otherwise he'd give no ground and say "this is a sad day for innovation" or whatever.
You raise an important issue, but keep the distinction clear: Individuals are often conscious of environmental issues, but company executives who have oil fields destroying the earth whilst living comfortably in Aspen typically just don't care. There is the difference: Caring individual, greedy corporation.
I say the best approach is to better educate individuals, and clamp down hard on companies who sadly ignore environmental concerns. Sadly for America, there is a two party system which means that environmental issues will not take center stage until such a time as it is an obvious survival issue. At least in many European countries, we can vote for a "green" party and lend a bigger voice to environmental concerns. So, for those of you in European countries, vote green. We all know that they are hardly going to rule a country outright, but the more voices, the better.
"Personally, one of the first things I'd have done after the Sept. 11 attacks was sign a huge increase in alternative energy funding".
And if a commonsense approach to environmental issues wasn't enough of a reason, consider the possibility of a future terrosist attack on one of the US' many nuclear power facilities. Let's face it, supposed increases in security since Spetember 11th have been total flops...
You all know why Lego make Duplo for the smaller children, right? =)
I find that cats have more personality than people, but maybe that's because I love cats so much and have too many gripes with humans. For the last six months I have been living with an very heavily asthmatic girl, so there's no way I could adopt a cat. She gave me a big fuzzy panther as a gift and substitute, but nothing can be the same (cuddly though it is). I still end up late for work from petting the cats that live nearby evey morning:)
Anyway, I do have a point.:) Somehow I don't think that the robotic cat idea is marketed towards cat lovers, more geeks and mechanics aficionados. It's not like the robotic cat will get on with you real cats, but we'll see...
This was a major concern of mine once I saw the anti-terrorist hysteria take shape. People sadly have a tendency to poison a lake to kill one bad fish (bad pun for a PETA member;)). People equally forget that alongside every "terror" group, a legitimate, democratic group works towards teh same ideal. All it takes is accusations that the democratic side is working with the terror side to blacken the legitimate group beyond redemption. I am an animal rights campaigner, and break no laws doing the work. However, I expect that soon I will be criminalised, a dossier will be assembled on me, my communications may very well be monitored (I live in the UK, it's an everyday occurence, so I'm not over-reacting). I also expect to be arrested in a few weeks.
For the record, not a single person has ever been killed by an "eco-terrorist". Now, very many of these selfless and noble people have been injured and even killed in their attempts to raise awareness of the suffering of the innocent.
Keep an eye on your liberties, folks. The day that you speak out against something you disagree with and you get labeled "unpatriotic" or a "terrorist", I'll be right there with an "I told ya so!"
What the hell are you on about? PETA do NOT advocate the killing, or even harming, of humans. I should know, I'm a member. I'll straighten out your claims a little further...
Regarding your claim that they steal pets and kill them: Bullshit. PETA do not "steal" anything. People such as the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) have been known to break into labs and free dogs who were due to be experimented on, etc. and immediately put them up for re-homing. Killing them would befeat the idea of liberating them.
No, PETA don't want to "terrorise" anyone into not "owning" animals. The idea, if your poor addled brain missed it is to demonstrate that animals, as sentient creatures, are NOT property. Only a hundered years ago, whites thought that blacks were their property. Those days are gone. Fact is, animals are victims of humans for the same reason slave nations were: No-one would speak up for them. Those times are changing fast. And to the guy who figures that having all sentient life on the same level is a wacko ideal, take a big bite of retarded human burger if you're so sure.
So, for your bullshit (libelous) claims, I deny them.
As I say above, High Society did one. It was this girl pouring Bailey's over her.. ahem.. "flower", and when you scratched it, you could smell the chocolate. It was awesome!!! I'll be keeping that for my grandkids.
Slashdot Mirror
All joking aside, this shows how flawed the study of human cancer in rodents is. It's true, many rodents are very succeptible to cancer, most of the time from stuff which is not carcinogenic to a person. So, if we relied on rats to tell us about human cancer, we'd probably have to live in bubbles, but we, uh, don't.
I wish these scientists would figure this stuff out about human beings instead of mice
Damn straight. Scientists have been curing human cancer in mice for over ten years now, and have never been able to extrapolate the data to humans. You think by now that they would have gotten the message. Humans and mice are not anthropomorhic, and are so entirely dissimilar that any research in this direction will prove futile.
Well, even brigher boy, clinical studies, autopsy, in vitro research, and epidemiology. Not to mention the countless people who volunteer themselves for research. Suddenly your 2c seems worth about 0c.
Read their "bunk", their sources, chase it up yourself if you're so damn sure. Then come back with a real opinion. And no, they are not fronts for anyone. They all come from the same background as other MD's, but have taken a stand because they are sick and tired of seeing science held up by false practice.
Correct, and I would just like to say that I'm sick of articles appearing on /. hailing a new medical success theory which has only been applied to animals. Don't people realise yet that it is frontpage news right now, but when they attempt to extrapolate the data to a human, it will invariable, as it always has done before, fail. And no-one will want to publish the failure of the technique on a front page, or likely not bother to report it. Face it people, they have been curing human cancer in rats for ten years, and have never been able to use the data. We're far too different. Hell, even some men and women are so different as to skew test data. Learn the facts folks, animal experimentation gets us nowhere, and often sends us backwards.
They tried, they failed. Using animals as a model for human problems in experimentation is intrinsically flawed by the species barrier. No medical success can be attributed to animal experimentation. Don't believe me? Have a look at the AFMA website, and give the facts your consideration. Honestly folks, let's get real. Opposition to these experiments are not anti science, they are pro science. Science that WORKS.
They have taken full organs from genetically engineered animals, and placed them into animals of a different speciesBR>
...And the whole project was a ctastrophic failure. The idea was to engineer pigs with the DNA of another animal, in the hope that this new "common bond" would mean that the animal on the recieving end of the transplantation, in that case, a babboon, would not reject the heart. Hundereds of babboons did not survive the surgery, and of the few that did (through the help of massive amounts of anti-rejection drugs which also produced massive cancers etc.) they died shortly after, in agony with massive complications. The company behind the project, Imutran, collapsed. To avoid a scandal (as they initially hailed the project as a success) they moved to America, and there has been no word since of how they have progressed, mainly because they operate entirely behindd closed doors now. Full diaries of the failed experiments were leaked, and they won't allow such an occurence a second time.
Xenotransplantation may never work, because animals are far too different from one another. Merely modifying DNA is not going to break down the species barriers that prevent this from succeeding. It would also create fresh problems, such as making another species vulnerable to the diseases of another.
Anyway folks, before you start hailing this as a success for medicine, learn the facts. At present, we can't prevent human organ rejection, let alone animal. The companies who conduct these experiments are the ones who market the anti-rejection drugs, and hence have a financial interest, certainly not a benevolent one, as has been evidenced by prior conduct. So, no, xenotransplantation has not been conducted, and never will. With Japan's approval, today marks a very sad day for the future of medicinal science.
Cos the chicks on Home & Away are hotter than any other soap stars.
Ya. I thought Hummus was a dip made from chick peas ;)
Yeah, this manner of legislatoin is slowly but surely bringing my worst fears into reality. I love living in a world where I can act like an international citizen. I can go from country to country, experience each has to offer, and avoid the pitfalls present in any particular one by simply not going there. I live in England, and whilst I like many aspects of life here, I see freedoms being stripped away over time, and I sure don't like it. So, what can I do? Leave. I'm not tied to the nation, I can bugger off without a moments thought. However, when I see an international attempt to subvert the freedoms I enjoy in a supposedly free country, moving to another affected country isn't going to get me anywhere. So, where can I go from here?
Time to get together and create a new country.
Nerdland? Linuxland??? Help me out, people!
I guess I'll be looking for a RedHat booth at my next anti-government, milita-sponsored gunshow.
Well why not? Subversive literature, espescially rough guides to the law, how to defend yourself against police, etc. have always been common at those. I'm sure that privacy software has featured more and more in recent years. And now that the DMCA attacks any US based attempt to circumvent FBI plans, for instance, I feel much happier with companies like Mandrake who inadvertantly offer protection, for the price of an ISO download.
Yeah, You're referring to Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The campaign to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences, a vivisection company (not a phharm company) with nothing but bad history. I'm glad you mention it, and I'm surprised that their case didn't get more press. All HLS had to do was threaten the host (envirolink.org) with the DMCA with copyright infringement, and they removed the site. SHAC just re-hosted in a few hours. It was a typical move by HLS, and a dangerous precedent.
Very true. www.shac.net, the website for animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, was removed from it's American based server (though later re-hosted outside America) due to a legal threat citing the DMCA against the host. The startling thing is that HLS (the swines invovled) are a UK based company, and they were objecting to "copyright infringement", and the said copyright was not protected under US jurisdiction. f00k that!
Be the impact major or minor, this is democracy in action. Take your chance! What harm can it do? I'm only jealous that as a European I cannot participate.
Bill gates is quoted as saying that the settlement was "fair and reasonable". This to me sounds like an admission that he was knowingly pushing the boundaries of the law to unacceptable levels before the judgement. Otherwise he'd give no ground and say "this is a sad day for innovation" or whatever.
You raise an important issue, but keep the distinction clear: Individuals are often conscious of environmental issues, but company executives who have oil fields destroying the earth whilst living comfortably in Aspen typically just don't care. There is the difference: Caring individual, greedy corporation.
I say the best approach is to better educate individuals, and clamp down hard on companies who sadly ignore environmental concerns. Sadly for America, there is a two party system which means that environmental issues will not take center stage until such a time as it is an obvious survival issue. At least in many European countries, we can vote for a "green" party and lend a bigger voice to environmental concerns. So, for those of you in European countries, vote green. We all know that they are hardly going to rule a country outright, but the more voices, the better.
"Personally, one of the first things I'd have done after the Sept. 11 attacks was sign a huge increase in alternative energy funding".
And if a commonsense approach to environmental issues wasn't enough of a reason, consider the possibility of a future terrosist attack on one of the US' many nuclear power facilities. Let's face it, supposed increases in security since Spetember 11th have been total flops...
You all know why Lego make Duplo for the smaller children, right? =)
Well, it did have to travel all the way to Ireland... And us Micks can be a slow breed anyway. =)
To quote Jay Leno:
"Sodomy and all that? That was all to do with him (Sodom), I (Gomorrah) was more of a holding-hands kind of guy".
I find that cats have more personality than people, but maybe that's because I love cats so much and have too many gripes with humans. For the last six months I have been living with an very heavily asthmatic girl, so there's no way I could adopt a cat. She gave me a big fuzzy panther as a gift and substitute, but nothing can be the same (cuddly though it is). I still end up late for work from petting the cats that live nearby evey morning :)
:) Somehow I don't think that the robotic cat idea is marketed towards cat lovers, more geeks and mechanics aficionados. It's not like the robotic cat will get on with you real cats, but we'll see...
Anyway, I do have a point.
If I had points, I'd mod you up! :)
;)). People equally forget that alongside every "terror" group, a legitimate, democratic group works towards teh same ideal. All it takes is accusations that the democratic side is working with the terror side to blacken the legitimate group beyond redemption. I am an animal rights campaigner, and break no laws doing the work. However, I expect that soon I will be criminalised, a dossier will be assembled on me, my communications may very well be monitored (I live in the UK, it's an everyday occurence, so I'm not over-reacting). I also expect to be arrested in a few weeks.
This was a major concern of mine once I saw the anti-terrorist hysteria take shape. People sadly have a tendency to poison a lake to kill one bad fish (bad pun for a PETA member
For the record, not a single person has ever been killed by an "eco-terrorist". Now, very many of these selfless and noble people have been injured and even killed in their attempts to raise awareness of the suffering of the innocent.
Keep an eye on your liberties, folks. The day that you speak out against something you disagree with and you get labeled "unpatriotic" or a "terrorist", I'll be right there with an "I told ya so!"
What the hell are you on about? PETA do NOT advocate the killing, or even harming, of humans. I should know, I'm a member. I'll straighten out your claims a little further...
Regarding your claim that they steal pets and kill them: Bullshit. PETA do not "steal" anything. People such as the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) have been known to break into labs and free dogs who were due to be experimented on, etc. and immediately put them up for re-homing. Killing them would befeat the idea of liberating them.
No, PETA don't want to "terrorise" anyone into not "owning" animals. The idea, if your poor addled brain missed it is to demonstrate that animals, as sentient creatures, are NOT property. Only a hundered years ago, whites thought that blacks were their property. Those days are gone. Fact is, animals are victims of humans for the same reason slave nations were: No-one would speak up for them. Those times are changing fast. And to the guy who figures that having all sentient life on the same level is a wacko ideal, take a big bite of retarded human burger if you're so sure.
So, for your bullshit (libelous) claims, I deny them.
Muslims don't eat bacon! :P
As I say above, High Society did one. It was this girl pouring Bailey's over her.. ahem.. "flower", and when you scratched it, you could smell the chocolate. It was awesome!!! I'll be keeping that for my grandkids.