Injecting someone with HIV to cure cancer? Pretty much the definition of risky.
So I'm guessing that you're proposal got rejected? I can safely say that since you somehow managed to get 'injected someone with hiv' out of it. No where, not even in the summary does it make such a statement.
NOW what are you going to do, you just don't count it because its already part of the baseline.
EVERYTHING CAUSES CANCER, there are just certain things we ignore as part of the baseline, that doesn't make it any less of a cause, it just makes it something we ignore.
Uhm, pretty much everything DOES cause cancer in significant quantities over a long enough time.
You're only an idiot if you let that dictate your life or in your case if you make retarded jokes about religious people as if you're any less of an ignorant fuck than they are.
Wow, you no nothing about how this stuff works eh?
Most government funded research ends up patented and owned by a big company, NIH money gets this treatment almost exclusively.
As much as it SHOULD be, Government funded science does not mean public domain science. It doesn't belong to the people, the people just pay for it to become reality so the drug companies can make larger profits.
For reference, my wife is a doctor who's dealt with just this exact sort of thing at a Big Pharma company. The don't play by the same rules because they have bigger lobbiest than you and I have.
Re:Experiments performed only on 3 test subjects
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Well, part of the problem is that you completely fail to understand what they did.
The people reading the grant proposals due understand that they aren't ACTUALLY using in the host, and the HIV cells can't replicate.
As far as the ethics violation, again, you don't have any understanding at all of what they are doing, otherwise you'd know what it was no issue.
You simply see HIV and think OMFG THEY ARE GIVING THEM AIDS! When reality is nothing of the sort.
Re:Experiments performed only on 3 test subjects
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
And theres the problem.
Killing cancer and AIDS is simple as shit. Unfortunately, drinking bleach also tends to kill the host. Just because they figured out a way to kill it, doesn't mean its a viable treatment... BUT... it is a step in the right direction.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Because they realize they can make almost as much money by curing it
Your thought pattern failed right here. They make MILLIONS AND MILLIONS treating a SINGLE cancer patient over the course of several years. In order for them to charge enough for the cure to make up for the lack of profits from treating it, they would have to charge so much money that it would be clear as day that they were not just ripping you off, but bending you over and driving a forklift up your ass without even a little lube.
No one else is going to do it because only a few companies CAN do all the FDA related bits really. None of those companies want to end their revenue stream, they aren't stupid.
India on the other hand, getting their hands on the technics used, would be happy to tell the drug companies to go fuck themselves and produce the cure themselves at $1 pill for their own people. Not just India (they've been known to do it however), plenty of other countries where greed isn't the only ruling factor in the government.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
They can find it tomorrow and it won't change anything... because they too make more money TREATING CANCER than they EVER COULD from a cure.
They don't want to find it either, it means the same loss of profit for everyone.
Do you guys have no clue what a cartel is?
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
not to mention the money from selling the cancer cure.
Selling chemo and radiological drugs, and all the drugs given to patients to deal side effects of the chemo and radiation over the course of several years is FAR FAR more profitable than a cure would be, they simply can't charge enough for a cure without being clearly money grabbing douche bags.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
These are exactly the types of treatments I was expecting soon after the genome was mapped.
The genome hasn't really been 'mapped' any more than we've mapped the asteroid belt.
Sure, we've learned a lot about the structure, but how it works and how to use it for something useful, not so much.
It'll be mapped when you can tell me what ever base pair does and what else it effects, we're not where near even thinking about getting to that point in the next 50 years.
Shrug, plenty of people would do the same sort of stupid shit based on the religion they worship known as science.
You can call religious people lots of names, but thats almost certainly because you're an ignorant fuck who worships a different 'God'.
You're both the same type of stupid, you just think you're smarter because you can point it out in someone else... but your too stupid to see that you're no different.
I've yet to meet an atheist that wasn't just a ignorant as some of the most ignorant religious fucks I've ever met.
How do I know it applies to you? You went out of your way to make a snarky comment about a religious comment. You try so hard to pretend you're different that you make it obvious your exactly the same.
No, you're considered in remission, once you have cancer, no one in health care will ever consider you 'cured', hence why you can never donate blood again in your life.
WRONG, this is entirely untrue, you can actually infect them with a different strain of aids and make it EVEN WORSE on them. You are highly unlikely to have the same exact strain, even if you got it from him/her/it. The virus mutates rather rapidly, which makes finding a treatment a fucking bitch.
Why be an early adopter when you know from Nintendo's track record that there will be a better version coming in the next year or so?
Because that will be true until Nintendo drastically changes their business practices... so you'll be waiting a long time. Eventually, you just have to buy whats on the market. If you keep 'waitting for the next version, it'll be out soon' then you'll just wait forever.
Could you point me at some? I'm not asking to argue, I just want some game that takes some time to play and isn't just a simple puzzler like World of Goo or Angry Birds. Something I can come back too every so often and invest some more time in, SimCity on the iPad isn't horrible, but its not really something you want to play on a flight unless you REALLY want to hurt when you get out of those coach seats.
Why are people so down on angry birds? It's simple, clever, and innovative
Because we were playing Angry Birds 15 years ago, except we called it Scorched Earth, and there was actually considerably more too it even if you couldn't tell at first glance.
Honestly, I'm just sick of hearing about Angry Birds... they developers now riddle their pay version of the app with ads which is obnoxious and I'm frankly sick of seeing it on stupid Android commercials its almost as obnoxious as the 'OMFG WE HAVE FLASH ON ANDROID' commercials.
Its a copy of something we got tired of literally 15 years ago. Its a really good copy, but the developers are douche bags (rich douche bags, but douche bags) who have taken a good thing and made it obnoxious. Its a really good implementation of an old idea, and kudos to them for that, but if all I had to do was copy someone elses game I'd be a billionaire by now. Some of us like to ACTUALLY innovate, which you might want to look up the definition of the word before you use it.
Sorry, I lie. I forgot we have actually cut off a couple countries where every sale resulted in a return, which costs us the %30 take apple takes. No return from any other country in the entire world, except 2. We just stopped selling to those 2 scammers.
Not that you said you'd be buying an iPhone, but I felt it worth mentioning that iOS apps are 'region locked' as well kind of, the author can put it on your store or not put it on your store, which would prevent you from getting it.
As an iOS developer, theres no way in hell we would ever do that, but I bet EA does.
A touchscreen has infinite possible variations of controls.
Yep, and they all suck total ass for almost every game out there, a few are playable... some work fine like Scrabble and Angry Birds, but anything with action sucks ass on a touch screen without tactile feedback. Even with real buttons if they don't feel right, gameplay sucks.
If you must have hardware buttons - buy them [icontrolpad.com].
And of course I won't have them with me when I want to play. I don't have a portable game console cause the last one I had was never with me when I wanted it, and I refuse to start carrying a purse just to possibly have it with me.
But frankly even FPS games do not HAVE to have hardware buttons...
Yes... yes, they do. You might be ABLE to play them without buttons, but theres no way I could have fun struggling through one.
Note: I think my iPhone is the single greatest device I've ever purchased for communications and other sorts of things, but its a fucking shitty game console compared to say a PSP or GB...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, talk about having douche bag parents, that really tops the cake.
Having recently written an NSF grant proposal
Injecting someone with HIV to cure cancer? Pretty much the definition of risky.
So I'm guessing that you're proposal got rejected? I can safely say that since you somehow managed to get 'injected someone with hiv' out of it. No where, not even in the summary does it make such a statement.
Oxygen causes cancer as well.
NOW what are you going to do, you just don't count it because its already part of the baseline.
EVERYTHING CAUSES CANCER, there are just certain things we ignore as part of the baseline, that doesn't make it any less of a cause, it just makes it something we ignore.
Uhm, pretty much everything DOES cause cancer in significant quantities over a long enough time.
You're only an idiot if you let that dictate your life or in your case if you make retarded jokes about religious people as if you're any less of an ignorant fuck than they are.
Wow, you no nothing about how this stuff works eh?
Most government funded research ends up patented and owned by a big company, NIH money gets this treatment almost exclusively.
As much as it SHOULD be, Government funded science does not mean public domain science. It doesn't belong to the people, the people just pay for it to become reality so the drug companies can make larger profits.
For reference, my wife is a doctor who's dealt with just this exact sort of thing at a Big Pharma company. The don't play by the same rules because they have bigger lobbiest than you and I have.
Well, part of the problem is that you completely fail to understand what they did.
The people reading the grant proposals due understand that they aren't ACTUALLY using in the host, and the HIV cells can't replicate.
As far as the ethics violation, again, you don't have any understanding at all of what they are doing, otherwise you'd know what it was no issue.
You simply see HIV and think OMFG THEY ARE GIVING THEM AIDS! When reality is nothing of the sort.
And theres the problem.
Killing cancer and AIDS is simple as shit. Unfortunately, drinking bleach also tends to kill the host. Just because they figured out a way to kill it, doesn't mean its a viable treatment ... BUT ... it is a step in the right direction.
Because they realize they can make almost as much money by curing it
Your thought pattern failed right here. They make MILLIONS AND MILLIONS treating a SINGLE cancer patient over the course of several years. In order for them to charge enough for the cure to make up for the lack of profits from treating it, they would have to charge so much money that it would be clear as day that they were not just ripping you off, but bending you over and driving a forklift up your ass without even a little lube.
No one else is going to do it because only a few companies CAN do all the FDA related bits really. None of those companies want to end their revenue stream, they aren't stupid.
India on the other hand, getting their hands on the technics used, would be happy to tell the drug companies to go fuck themselves and produce the cure themselves at $1 pill for their own people. Not just India (they've been known to do it however), plenty of other countries where greed isn't the only ruling factor in the government.
They can find it tomorrow and it won't change anything ... because they too make more money TREATING CANCER than they EVER COULD from a cure.
They don't want to find it either, it means the same loss of profit for everyone.
Do you guys have no clue what a cartel is?
not to mention the money from selling the cancer cure.
Selling chemo and radiological drugs, and all the drugs given to patients to deal side effects of the chemo and radiation over the course of several years is FAR FAR more profitable than a cure would be, they simply can't charge enough for a cure without being clearly money grabbing douche bags.
These are exactly the types of treatments I was expecting soon after the genome was mapped.
The genome hasn't really been 'mapped' any more than we've mapped the asteroid belt.
Sure, we've learned a lot about the structure, but how it works and how to use it for something useful, not so much.
It'll be mapped when you can tell me what ever base pair does and what else it effects, we're not where near even thinking about getting to that point in the next 50 years.
Shrug, plenty of people would do the same sort of stupid shit based on the religion they worship known as science.
You can call religious people lots of names, but thats almost certainly because you're an ignorant fuck who worships a different 'God'.
You're both the same type of stupid, you just think you're smarter because you can point it out in someone else ... but your too stupid to see that you're no different.
I've yet to meet an atheist that wasn't just a ignorant as some of the most ignorant religious fucks I've ever met.
How do I know it applies to you? You went out of your way to make a snarky comment about a religious comment. You try so hard to pretend you're different that you make it obvious your exactly the same.
No, you're considered in remission, once you have cancer, no one in health care will ever consider you 'cured', hence why you can never donate blood again in your life.
Latex on Latex (male condom and female condom) tend to just rip themselves apart, not the brightest of ideas.
Perhaps you should read the instructions on the box next time you fill them up with mayo and through them off the roof.
Condoms ARE NOT TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF STDs. YOU STILL EXCHANGE FLUIDS EVEN WHEN USING A CONDOM.
You exchange FAR less, but it still happens. Condoms also break.
Again, say it with me this time CONDOMS ARE NOT TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF STDs, they aren't really all that effective at it.
So your a virgin eh? You sound like a teenage boy acting like you have a clue when you clearly do not.
Right, because when you have sex with a condom, absolutely no fluids can possibly be exchanged ...
Clearly you've never had sex, but damn, haven't you seen some videos?
WRONG, this is entirely untrue, you can actually infect them with a different strain of aids and make it EVEN WORSE on them. You are highly unlikely to have the same exact strain, even if you got it from him/her/it. The virus mutates rather rapidly, which makes finding a treatment a fucking bitch.
Why be an early adopter when you know from Nintendo's track record that there will be a better version coming in the next year or so?
Because that will be true until Nintendo drastically changes their business practices ... so you'll be waiting a long time. Eventually, you just have to buy whats on the market. If you keep 'waitting for the next version, it'll be out soon' then you'll just wait forever.
I've played a few epic 3GB games on iOS
Could you point me at some? I'm not asking to argue, I just want some game that takes some time to play and isn't just a simple puzzler like World of Goo or Angry Birds. Something I can come back too every so often and invest some more time in, SimCity on the iPad isn't horrible, but its not really something you want to play on a flight unless you REALLY want to hurt when you get out of those coach seats.
Why are people so down on angry birds? It's simple, clever, and innovative
Because we were playing Angry Birds 15 years ago, except we called it Scorched Earth, and there was actually considerably more too it even if you couldn't tell at first glance.
Honestly, I'm just sick of hearing about Angry Birds ... they developers now riddle their pay version of the app with ads which is obnoxious and I'm frankly sick of seeing it on stupid Android commercials its almost as obnoxious as the 'OMFG WE HAVE FLASH ON ANDROID' commercials.
Its a copy of something we got tired of literally 15 years ago. Its a really good copy, but the developers are douche bags (rich douche bags, but douche bags) who have taken a good thing and made it obnoxious. Its a really good implementation of an old idea, and kudos to them for that, but if all I had to do was copy someone elses game I'd be a billionaire by now. Some of us like to ACTUALLY innovate, which you might want to look up the definition of the word before you use it.
Sorry, I lie. I forgot we have actually cut off a couple countries where every sale resulted in a return, which costs us the %30 take apple takes. No return from any other country in the entire world, except 2. We just stopped selling to those 2 scammers.
Not that you said you'd be buying an iPhone, but I felt it worth mentioning that iOS apps are 'region locked' as well kind of, the author can put it on your store or not put it on your store, which would prevent you from getting it.
As an iOS developer, theres no way in hell we would ever do that, but I bet EA does.
A touchscreen has infinite possible variations of controls.
Yep, and they all suck total ass for almost every game out there, a few are playable ... some work fine like Scrabble and Angry Birds, but anything with action sucks ass on a touch screen without tactile feedback. Even with real buttons if they don't feel right, gameplay sucks.
If you must have hardware buttons - buy them [icontrolpad.com].
And of course I won't have them with me when I want to play. I don't have a portable game console cause the last one I had was never with me when I wanted it, and I refuse to start carrying a purse just to possibly have it with me.
But frankly even FPS games do not HAVE to have hardware buttons...
Yes ... yes, they do. You might be ABLE to play them without buttons, but theres no way I could have fun struggling through one.
Note: I think my iPhone is the single greatest device I've ever purchased for communications and other sorts of things, but its a fucking shitty game console compared to say a PSP or GB ...
Jeremy Allison is a Samba developer. He does tend to know more than a little bit about how it works.
His UID is meaningless, the fact that his job is 'maintaining Samba' qualifies him to talk about it